Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Housing, Communities and Local Government

The Secretary of State was asked—

Domestic Abuse

Christine Jardine: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on funding for local authorities to ensure that they can provide the support to people experiencing domestic abuse that would be required under the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Bill.

Kelly Tolhurst: My Department has engaged extensively across government in taking forward the new duty on local authorities to provide support in safe accommodation, as set out in the Domestic Abuse Bill. As a new burden, it will be appropriately funded—the amount is a matter for the spending review—to ensure that local authorities are ready to provide the right support to victims. Last month, I announced a £6 million fund to support councils to prepare for that duty.

Christine Jardine: As it stands, the Domestic Abuse Bill places a duty on local authorities, as the Minister said, to support survivors who are in refuges, and of course they must, but with the rise we are seeing in domestic abuse, the majority of survivors do not move into refuges, and they also need support. Will the Minister therefore agree that local authorities must also have that duty and the funding to provide the community-based services and support that survivors need?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank the hon. Lady for her point. She is right that any victim of domestic abuse needs that support in place, and the new duty in part 4 of the Bill will ensure that support is available to victims in a wide range of accommodation services and not just refuges. We recognise that more needs to be done to ensure adequate provision in the community is available, and that is why the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is undertaking a review of that provision. That review will enable us as the Government to better understand the needs and develop outcomes for how best to address them.

Naseem Shah: Only this morning, it was reported that women suffering from domestic abuse were being turned away by up to five separate refuges, even where spaces were available, due to them not speaking English and a lack of specialist services. The provisions in the Domestic Abuse Bill and the statutory duty on councils is one thing, but does the Minister understand that, if the funding for refuges from local authorities is as severely under-resourced as charities such as Refuge and Women’s Aid estimate, the legislative change will be meaningless for those women who are desperately fleeing abuse only to be turned away?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Lady raises an important point. A home should be a place of safety, and for those in abusive relationships, the situation she outlines is not acceptable. Domestic abuse is a heinous crime, and we are committed as a Government to ensuring that survivors get the support they need. I am monitoring the situation as we move through covid in regard to the demand for places, and that is exactly why the Government announced  the £10 million emergency support fund, which has gone to more than 160 charities. That has helped reopen 350 beds and created more than 1,500, but there is absolutely no complacency. I will continue to monitor this, as will Ministers in the Home Office as well. We will take action where required.

Rough Sleepers: Accommodation

Bob Blackman: What progress his Department has made on delivering new accommodation for rough sleepers.

Robert Jenrick: As part of our plan to end rough sleeping, earlier this year I announced a £433 million funding package, which will provide 6,000 homes for rough sleepers over the course of this Parliament, the largest ever investment in accommodation of this kind. We are taking immediate action with the funding. Last month, we allocated over £150 million to local partners to deliver 3,300 new homes to rough sleepers across England, and these will be available by the end of March next year.

Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. The brilliant work of the Government, charities and local government in the Everyone In initiative meant that 30,000 people were provided with safe emergency accommodation, which obviously reduced pressure on the NHS and undoubtedly saved lives. I welcome the Protect programme and the announcements he has made on new homes, but the reality is that the announcement of 3,000 new homes will not help and assist the 30,000 people in total who need accommodation right now. What efforts will he make to ensure that safe and secure accommodation is provided to all those threatened with rough sleeping? Also, will he commit to rolling out the Housing First programme, which is so necessary to help those who have been sleeping rough to rebuild their lives?

Robert Jenrick: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is absolutely the priority for my Department. I am proud that, as of September, we have successfully supported over 29,000 vulnerable people through our efforts, with over 10,000 helped into emergency accommodation and nearly 19,000 already provided with settled accommodation or move-on support. Thankfully, very few of those individuals have so far returned to the streets. He mentions Housing First. He will know that we have funded a number of pilots, which he helped to inspire in previous years. We have learnt from that work, and that is very much the impetus behind the rough sleeping accommodation programme, because every individual who goes into one of these 6,000 new homes will be given wraparound care for mental health, addiction, substance abuse and all the other things that they need to begin to rebuild their lives.

Thangam Debbonaire: The Government’s former rough sleeping tsar has warned that we are heading for a “perfect storm of awfulness” this winter when it comes to homelessness. With many owner-occupiers and renters struggling with bills, rent  or mortgages, there is a likelihood that more people  will get to a place of desperation. There are already  130,000 children in temporary accommodation, but there is little action from the Government to tackle hidden homelessness. With rough sleeping levels going back to where they were and no repeat of Everyone In, there is real concern. What does the Secretary of State consider to be different about rough sleeping in a winter lockdown, apart from it being colder and more dangerous than in spring?

Robert Jenrick: In a letter to me, the hon. Lady described the Government’s Everyone In programme as “an incredible achievement” that helped to save “hundreds of lives”. She is absolutely right, and I would like to thank all the councils and charities that were part of that. That plan has not stopped; that work continues. We are backing it with £700 million of Government investment. We began planning for the winter in the summer. We have put more money in for housing. We have also asked every local authority in the country to draw up its own individual plan and backed that with £100 million of additional support. The Protect programme now once again asks local authorities to give everyone who is sleeping rough on the streets during this new period of national measures a safe place to stay. We will be working cross-party with councils across the length and breadth of England to make that a success.

Places of Worship: Covid-19

Andrew Rosindell: What assessment the Government have made of the transmission rate of covid-19 in places of worship where social distancing restrictions were in place.

Kelly Tolhurst: We are grateful to our faith communities for their efforts in ensuring that their places of worship are as covid-secure as possible. However, the view of the scientific community, including the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, is that there is a greater risk of the virus spreading indoors and where people gather. Regrettably, this means that places of worship are currently closed for communal prayer but remain open for individual prayer.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for her reply. Given the serious implications of criminalising worship and the hardship it has caused churches and religious communities, will the Government commit to publishing their evidence base and to consulting fully and widely with faith groups before any future decisions on applying restrictions to worship are made?

Kelly Tolhurst: I do not underestimate the concern that this has caused for our religious communities, but the evidence from the scientific community, including SAGE, shows that the virus spreads quicker indoors and where people gather and interact. We are incredibly grateful to those who have taken part in the places of worship taskforce for their support and advice. We continue to call on their expertise and that of all major faith groups ahead of the regulations ending on 2 December, and we will continue to have those conversations over the next two weeks.

Janet Daby: The Government created a places of worship taskforce in May, but the taskforce has been ignored and has repeatedly not been consulted on these very consequential decisions during the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that our people of faith do not deserve to be an afterthought for the Government but must instead be respected, and will she commit to the Government meeting weekly with the taskforce to avoid this problem being repeated?

Kelly Tolhurst: I have to disagree strongly with the hon. Lady’s assertion that the taskforce has not been consulted. It has been led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We have listened to the views of the community leaders and individuals around the table, and evidence has been shared. I can agree to her call for a weekly meeting, because the taskforce already meets weekly.

Buckinghamshire Council: Devolution Proposals

Rob Butler: What assessment he has made of the proposals for devolution from Buckinghamshire Council.

Greg Smith: What assessment he has made of the proposals on devolution from Buckinghamshire Council.

Luke Hall: We are committed to levelling up through further devolution, but our focus must be on tackling covid-19. I know that Buckinghamshire Council has worked tirelessly throughout this pandemic to support its community, helped by £32 million in additional covid funding. We intend to bring forward the devolution and local recovery White Paper in due course, detailing how the UK Government will partner with places across the country to build a sustainable economic recovery.

Rob Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I join him in his praise for Buckinghamshire Council, which has worked tirelessly through this pandemic. Does he agree with me that this proposal from the council has all the potential ingredients for success, because it is place based and it has support from the local enterprise partnership, health partners, universities, and the voluntary and community sector? Will he therefore urge his officials to engage in conversations with the council as soon as is practically possible?

Luke Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to raise this hugely important issue, and I was pleased to meet him and other colleagues from Buckinghamshire just the week before last. We are extremely grateful to the council for submitting its proposal, and I know my officials are looking at it closely. As I have said, we will set out details about our approach to devolution in the White Paper. I absolutely agree that our officials should meet as soon as possible to discuss this proposal in greater depth.

Greg Smith: I thank the Minister for his answers, and particularly for his praise of Buckinghamshire Council throughout the pandemic. I agree with him entirely that the focus must be on recovery from covid-19, and that is precisely at the nub of the devolution proposals that  Buckinghamshire has put together. Therefore, will my hon. Friend agree to meet the Buckinghamshire MPs, Buckinghamshire Council and all of our partners to look at the detail of this proposal, which could put £10 billion extra into the UK economy, both to get the right deal for Buckinghamshire and to help shape the White Paper?

Luke Hall: I thank my hon. Friend. It was a pleasure to meet him recently to discuss this and other matters in Buckinghamshire. I would be delighted to have that meeting. As I say, I think our officials should meet to discuss the proposal, and then let us get together with the council very soon to take it further.

Regional Inequality

Dan Jarvis: What steps he is taking to ensure that local authority funding is used to tackle regional inequality.

Luke Hall: Since the start of the pandemic, we have given over £7.2 billion directly to councils. Sheffield city region has received £127 million in un-ringfenced covid emergency funding, on top of an increase in core spending power of over £70 million this year, and it is set to benefit further from the latest round of support for the November lockdown. Households in the most deprived areas in England receive nearly three times as much spending per home as those in the least deprived areas.

Dan Jarvis: I thank the Minister for that response. He will know that since 2015, South Yorkshire has received £363 million from the local growth fund—money that has created 15,000 jobs, funded the revitalisation of town centres and supported investment from companies such as Boeing and McLaren. What plans does his Department have to extend this crucial pipeline of funding beyond next March, so that Mayors and local leaders can rebuild their economies?

Luke Hall: I thank the hon Gentleman for his question, and for working so constructively with Government throughout this pandemic. He is right to highlight the importance of local growth funding to places and people up and down this country. The Budget this year did confirm up to £387 million in 2021-22 to provide certainty for local areas, which allows them to continue with existing priority local growth fund projects that require funding past this financial year. We will work closely with LEPs and Mayors to understand the changing need of local economies, and will look at how this funding can be used alongside other resources to support local economic recovery efforts. Further funding decisions will be announced in due course at the spending review.

Kate Hollern: When a Conservative Chancellor delivered his austerity Budget a decade ago, he said we are “all in this together”, yet the reality has been far from that, with communities in the north seeing a disproportionate impact on council budgets—in Blackburn, cut by over 50%—dramatically reducing our resilience to the covid crisis and our ability to recover and bounce back. Can the Minister assure the country that the Government will not break their promises again, and that his Department will take real action to address the health and economic inequalities in the north?

Luke Hall: I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assertions. The council self-reported covid costs through September stand at £3.6 billion. We have provided £7.2 billion on top of our sales fees and charges scheme, which recoups councils with 75% of their lost income past that first 5%. The hon. Lady’s own council has had £87 million in funding, £15 million in additional un-ringfenced covid funding and £1.37 million in test and trace support. The hon. Lady is also wrong to say that we are not targeting the funding where it is needed. In distributing our covid emergency funding, we have taken into account the roles of deprivation and population, and the different cost drivers up and down the country. We are listening to councils, we are working with them and we praise their extraordinary ability to respond to the pressures of this pandemic.

Town Regeneration

Kate Griffiths: What steps he is taking to support regeneration in towns.

Ian Levy: What steps he is taking to support regeneration in towns.

Mark Logan: What steps he is taking to support regeneration in towns.

Jerome Mayhew: What steps he is taking to support regeneration in towns.

Robert Jenrick: We are witnessing a profound reshaping of our towns and high streets as covid-19 continues to have a very significant impact on our communities. Our towns fund is investing £3.6 billion in an initial 100 towns, which will help to renew town centres and high streets across the country. In September, all 101 towns received their share of over £80 million to help deliver immediate improvements, and I was pleased to announce the first seven comprehensive town deals last month, with further deals and the results of the future high streets competition being announced very shortly.

Kate Griffiths: The market town of Uttoxeter in my constituency has been identified as well placed to support housing growth in the local plan. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the potential that the regeneration of Uttoxeter town centre offers and how we can ensure that it meets the needs of those who live and work in the area as the population increases?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend has the privilege of representing a historic market town in Staffordshire that I know well, and she is absolutely right to say that covid-19 presents great opportunities for the repurposing of offices and retail. We need to seize that moment and ensure that we get more housing in our town centres. That is the way that we will drive footfall, and we will turn empty shops into thriving homes. We have already put in place new planning reforms to enable people to do just that, as well as to demolish vacant buildings and turn them into housing, and we will continue to find new flexibilities in the months and years ahead to do just that.

Ian Levy: Since my election, I have heard from many constituents who have concerns about the neglect of the high street in Blyth. The town has applied for money from the high streets fund as well as the towns fund. While I realise that there has to be a fair and transparent process for selecting the successful schemes, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all he can to help the people of Blyth in the Conservative aim to level up? Let’s build back better.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Blyth is one of the initial places chosen to develop proposals for the towns fund and for the future high streets fund, and we recently provided £750,000 to make immediate improvements to Bowes Street. I was also pleased that, as part of our £900 million getting building fund, two projects in Blyth are seeing investment from the Government, including £2.6 million for the creation of the UK’s first offshore wind centre for robotics. So, from improving one of the town’s historic streets to green jobs for the future, the Government are investing in new opportunities for Blyth.

Mark Logan: Over the last four years the average number of visits per person to Bolton town centre has fallen, as has happened in much of the country—indeed, in Bolton’s case it has fallen by 37%—while vacancies and crime have risen. Can my right Friend assure my residents that the Government will make efforts to reverse this trend by encouraging growth in the markets of the future?

Robert Jenrick: I certainly can. We have taken a number of steps throughout the pandemic to help small businesses, particularly in retail and hospitality, so that when, as we hope and expect, the national measures are eased on 2 December, it will be easier for those businesses to move forward. I was pleased last week to announce that I am extending the right that allows pubs, restaurants and cafés to provide takeaway services until March 2022. I have also extended the option for local authorities, such as the council in Bolton, to host outdoor markets and events, and for businesses such as pubs to use their land temporarily without planning permission, for example for marquees in pub gardens.

Jerome Mayhew: Given that the likely response to covid will mean that office space is needed much less in the future, and that that is likely to be a long-term trend, does my right hon. Friend agree that that should have a profound impact on the algorithmic distribution of housing numbers anticipated by the planning White Paper?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are seeing the most substantial change to our city centres and town centres since the second world war, and that does give us pause for reflection. We now need to consider what the opportunities will be for the repurposing of offices as residential and for turning retail into mixed use, and that will, I think, lead us to a different approach to distributing housing numbers across the country. The consultation that he refers to has closed; we are considering the responses, and I will make a statement on that in the weeks ahead.

Dangerous Cladding: Leaseholder Support

Lucy Powell: What support he is providing to leaseholders with properties that have dangerous cladding.

Christopher Pincher: We are providing £1.6 billion to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding and make homes safer, and to make them safer quicker. Where funding alone has not been enough to increase the pace of remediation, we are providing direct expert support to projects. We will continue to listen to leaseholders to resolve their concerns.

Lucy Powell: I thank the Minister for his continued engagement on these issues, but, as he knows, the very difficult and serious issues now facing tens of thousands of leaseholders around the country are growing, not declining, and they are taking a serious toll on people’s lives and livelihoods. From buildings unable to get insurance, to the nightmares of acquiring an EWS1 form even for buildings with no cladding and the many now deemed out of scope of the building safety fund, this is becoming a national scandal and a real crisis for leaseholders. Will the Minister meet me and Manchester City Council to discuss an excellent piece of work that it has done on the wider and acute impacts of these issues on a place such as Manchester?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question and for the tone of it. Of course I will continue to engage with her and will happily meet her, as I think I did in July, to discuss these matters. She raised the EWS1 form particularly, and I think it would be worthwhile if I said a few words about it.
First, it is worth pointing out that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors EWS1 form is not a Government document; it was devised by RICS and by the industry. Not all lenders require it; some use other tools. Lenders that do require it are working with us to ensure that there are more nuanced tools available to resolve leaseholders’ concerns. I should say, with respect to those lenders that use EWS1 forms for buildings less than 18 metres in height, that that is not something that the Government support. We do not support a blanket approach to the use of EWS1 forms. Lenders should use other tools in order to discuss the safety or otherwise of those sorts of buildings.

Mike Amesbury: Over three years on from the Grenfell tragedy and one year since the Bolton Cube fire, 203 high-rise blocks are still clad with flammable aluminium composite material, and many thousands more are clad with equally flammable high-pressure laminate. Minister, is it not about time to come clean about the serious limitations of the size and scope of the building safety fund? Up to 1.5 million people, such as Paul in Manchester, are desperate, trapped in this nightmare. What bold, urgent action does the Minister intend to take?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know, with respect to ACM cladding, that we have made £600 million available to remediate the most dangerous buildings. Something like 97% of buildings with ACM cladding have either completed  or started their remediation. As a result of the expert support we have provided to private building owners, we have supported something like 100 ACM projects to remediation. With respect to the £1 billion fund for non-ACM-clad buildings, I can tell him that we have had a very significant number of applications, which have worked through. A very significant number have now been asked to make further information available, so we can advance those applications. We will get the money out of the door as quickly as we can. We will also encourage builders and owners to remediate the buildings themselves, because that is what they are obliged to do. It should not fall on the taxpayer to pay for remediation. It is the responsibility in the first case of building owners, through their warrantee schemes or through the original builders.

Clive Betts: Could the Housing Minister clarify the Government’s policy on what costs leaseholders should have to bear for the removal of cladding? On 20 July, the Secretary of State, in a written statement, very helpfully said:
“The Government are clear that it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 89WS.]
However, by the time we got to 16 October, the Housing Minister himself said we should look for solutions
“that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs”.
So, not any costs, but unaffordable costs. When the Minister with responsibility for building safety came to the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, he could only define “affordable” as costs that did not make someone bankrupt. Does the Housing Minister understand the great concern and upset that the change of policy has caused for leaseholders, who thought they would bear no costs but could now be faced with substantial bills? Will he explain the change of policy or, better still, go back to the original policy the Secretary of State identified that the costs should not fall on leaseholders at all?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the Chairman of the Select Committee and I am grateful for the report that the Committee produced on cladding. There has been no change in policy. The Government are quite clear that we do not expect, and we do not want, leaseholders to bear the costs of remediation of unsafe buildings for which they were not responsible. That cost should fall on the owners, through the owners, the builders or any warrantee scheme the owners have.

Lindsay Hoyle: Questions 20 and 21 have been withdrawn, so could we have the answer to the substantive questions, followed by David Linden from the SNP?

Stronger Towns Fund

Luke Hall: The £3.6 billion towns fund is delivered in England only. There are Barnett consequentials for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the responsibility of the relevant devolved Administrations to decide how that funding is spent.

David Linden: Quite aside from the Public Accounts Committee findings of Ministers wildly and inappropriately gerrymandering the funding  process, I would like to ask the Minister about the Barnettisation of that funding. It is amazing how all the Tory MPs can stand up and say how much money their towns and constituencies are getting, yet it took the Secretary of State four months to confirm to me in writing that the funding would be Barnettised. How much is Scotland due to get and why have we not received it yet?

Luke Hall: We will provide further clarity on the Barnett consequentials of the Department’s programme of work following the next spending review.

Building Safety Programme

Kenny MacAskill: What recent discussions he has had with (a) firefighter unions and (b) local authorities on the Building Safety Programme.

Christopher Pincher: My Department is in regular contact with local authorities and the Local Government Association as part of the building safety programme. Local authorities play an important role in advancing remediation. They are routinely invited to meetings with officials and are represented on the early adopters group. Eleven local authorities across London attended the Department’s remediation summit in September.

Kenny MacAskill: Difficulty in borrowing on or selling a home may be understandable when it is caused by unexpected natural events, climatic or otherwise. It is entirely unacceptable, though, when it is caused by obvious Government changes, especially to building regulations. The Fire Brigades Union and local authorities know what needs to be done, but it is only the Government who actually have the purse strings and can take the action to put homeowners out of the misery that they find themselves in. When will that be done?

Christopher Pincher: It is being done. We have made available £4 million to local authorities to support a data collection exercise looking at external wall systems. Together with the Home Office, we have made £20 million available to increase the capacity and capability of fire and rescue services in their conduct of fire protection activity. We are backing local authorities. We are backing the fire and rescue service. I only wish the hon. Gentleman knew that.

Disused Coal Tips: Safety and Stability

Chris Bryant: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on local authorities’ responsibilities for the stability and safety of disused coal tips.

Christopher Pincher: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the hon. Member in October saying that he is expecting to provide £2.5 million needed for tip repairs in Tylorstown. The letter also clarifies that he is waiting to hear further from the Welsh Government on additional requests to access the reserve and is working with the Welsh Government’s Finance Minister on this very matter.

Chris Bryant: It is all very interesting that the Minister reads out a letter that I have already received, so I have actually read it, but it does not answer the question at all. My question is about how we are going to make sure that all the coal tips across the whole UK—because there is still no register of them in England and Wales—are properly accounted for and properly made stable and safe, so that we do not have another Aberfan disaster. I say this as much for constituencies in England as in Wales, because the real danger is that if we have had to find £12.5 million for a single tip in Tylorstown that fell into the river, imagine what the bill is going to be across the whole of England and Wales. It is time the Government woke up to this, and I really hope the Minister will answer the direct question about who is going to be footing the bill. Local authorities will be bankrupted by this if we are not careful.

Christopher Pincher: I was just checking that the hon. Gentleman had received the letter and that he had read it. He has, and I am pleased and grateful for his further contribution. He will know that Welsh local authorities started the 2020-21 financial year with over £1.4 billion of usable reserves. Of that, £200 million was general and unallocated. As I said to him, the Treasury is in discussion with the Welsh Government regarding the funding on this topic. Welsh authorities should discuss further funding with the Welsh Government and I encourage him to do similarly.

Covid-19 Lockdown: Local Authority Support

Sheryll Murray: What financial support the Government is providing to local authorities during the November 2020 covid-19 lockdown.

Luke Hall: Since the start of the pandemic, we have provided over £7.2 billion directly to councils. We have also confirmed further support for local authorities through the extension of the contain outbreak management fund, and Cornwall will receive an extra £35 million from the additional resources grant and business grants for closed businesses.

Sheryll Murray: I thank the Government for their generous support to councils during this difficult time. I have two very important crossings across the Tamar in my constituency, owned by Cornwall and Plymouth councils, which have run into financial difficulty. How does my right hon. Friend the Minister advise that this situation should be resolved?

Luke Hall: I know that this is a hugely important matter for my hon. Friend and her constituents. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have provided Cornwall Council with over £60 million and over £30 million to Plymouth City Council. Local authorities should be able to claim for relevant irrecoverable losses from toll bridges and roads. These losses have a named category in the form through which local authorities make their claims. However, it is for local authorities to be responsible for making sure that the claims that they make under the scheme meet the principles that we set out. We would advise her local authorities to consider these carefully before making any submissions.

Affordable Housing

Laurence Robertson: What steps he is taking to improve the supply of affordable housing.

Christopher Pincher: The Government are investing £12.2 billion in affordable housing over the next five years from next year. That includes £11.5 billion for the affordable homes programme, which we anticipate will provide up to 180,000 new affordable homes, should economic conditions allow. Furthermore, at spring statement 2019 we announced a new £3 billion affordable homes guarantee scheme, which will build on the success of the existing £3.24 billion scheme and support the delivery of new build affordable homes.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that very full reply; it is good that so much work is going on. Does he think it might be useful to revisit the definition of affordable homes? In the past, we tended to use the definition of 80% of average market value, which, when prices are high—as they often are—is still not affordable. Will he consider that, please?

Christopher Pincher: I am always happy to consider my hon. Friend’s suggestions. He will know that the affordable homes definition in the national planning policy framework includes:
“Housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market”
and the assumption is that that is at 80% of average cost. Of course, we also have a social rent option that local authorities can leverage, and we have certainly allowed local authorities greater ease in developing their own social homes. I also point him to our first homes programme, which provides discounts of at least 30% on homes in perpetuity so that people can realise the dream of their own home.

Covid-19: Local Authority Support

Jon Trickett: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of support given to local authorities in areas with high covid-19 infection rates.

Luke Hall: Councils’ self-reported figures suggest that local authorities spent an additional £3.6 billion through September as a result of covid. Since the start of the pandemic, we have provided over £7.2 billion directly to councils and are now providing new funding for national restrictions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the additional funding of over £40 million that Wakefield Council has received to support its community so far this year.

Jon Trickett: Austerity impacted most on the poorer communities right across the north and elsewhere. In Wakefield alone we have lost almost £50 million from local care services, schools, youth support and child services, not to mention the wage freezes for key workers. The impact of covid in damaging community resilience is apparent to all. Is it not time for the Minister to show that he has learned lessons by restoring funding to those  communities in difficulty from the cuts and finally giving a rise to the key workers who have done so much to keep our country going?

Luke Hall: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speak like that about local authority when he supported and voted for the local government finance settlement this year. As I said, since the start of the pandemic we have provided £7.2 billion in funding. Wakefield has received £31 million across four tranches of unring-fenced funding, the last including deprivation, population and cost driver indicators, too. It has also received £2 million for test and trace, £7 million from the infection control fund and more than £40 million in additional grants. As the hon. Gentleman failed to do so, may I use this opportunity again to recognise the incredible work of councils, who have been dynamic and energetic in responding to an incredibly difficult period?

Towns Fund

Matt Vickers: What progress the Government have made on the towns fund.

Luke Hall: On 27 October, we announced the first seven town deal offers, worth almost £180 million, for Barrow-in-Furness, Blackpool, Darlington, Norwich, Peterborough, Torquay and Warrington. Of course, we look forward to receiving further town deal proposals, including from Thornaby in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in the coming months. We will also bring forward a competitive element of the fund so that more places can benefit from investment that will improve our towns and high streets and drive long-term economic growth.

Matt Vickers: I am currently working alongside councillors, businesses and community groups to put together Thornaby’s bid for up to £25 million. We want to get rid of the Eagle hotel and other blights on our town centre as well as improve training and skills opportunities, leisure facilities and cycle routes—and, importantly, we want to make life-changing improvements to housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that local people know their area best? Will he help unblock any bureaucratic barriers that prevent money being spent on local priorities?

Luke Hall: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for all his work. The objective of the towns deals is to drive the economic regeneration of towns, including through improving transport and digital infrastructure, supporting skills development and making the most of the planning powers to create a supportive environment for residents and businesses. The towns fund will support mixed-use redevelopment in towns such as Thornaby, creating thriving places for people to live and work. Each town has its own local priorities and should align its proposed interventions with the towns fund intervention framework, as set out in the further guidance.

Traveller Communities: Planning Policy

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to improve planning policy for Traveller communities.

Christopher Pincher: The Government’s response to the consultation on powers for dealing with unauthorised development and encampments proposed measures related to Traveller site provision  and strengthening planning enforcement powers. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that further changes to planning policy will be considered as part of our reforms to the wider planning system set out in our White Paper, “Planning for the Future”.

Andrew Selous: In parts of the country, we have the double disaster of settled residents moving away in fear and Traveller children having the worst outcomes of any group of children. Can the Minister reassure me that the review that his Department is undertaking will put an end to the unacceptable situation in which both those groups find themselves

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on these issues, as have several others in the House. He will know that the Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers and their children, but we must not be blind to the rights of the settled community as well. The distress that some local communities face due to antisocial behaviour is unacceptable. Local authorities have a wide range of powers at their disposal, including the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, but I can confirm to him that I will happily consider his and other proposals as we work through the contributions to the White Paper consultation, to ensure that our planning reform also encapsulates the concerns he raises.

Topical Questions

Alison Thewliss: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Robert Jenrick: I would like to take this opportunity once again to thank our local councils and councillors across the country for their resilience and hard work in this period of new national restrictions. We are providing more than £7 billion of funding directly to councils alongside our sales, fees and charges scheme, which we expect to also be worth well in excess of £1 billion this year. When it comes to the role that councils have played in protecting the most vulnerable in society—rough sleepers—their work has truly been world class. Last week, I announced the launch of the Protect programme, the next phase in our strategy, which has been widely praised as one of the most successful of its kind anywhere in the world. I thank local councillors in advance for the work they will do in the weeks to come. The Prime Minister and I have been clear that, despite the challenges we face, our mission to deliver the housing our country needs continues at pace. We have kept the market open in order to protect house building and ensure that we protect the millions of jobs that depend upon it.

Alison Thewliss: We do not have the leasehold system in Scotland, yet as a result of rules drawn up with the English leasehold system in mind, each individual owner must get their own EWS1 assessment carried out. How does the Secretary of State intend to resolve this costly and bureaucratic system, which is clearly not fit for purpose in Scotland and which is causing such difficulty  to my constituents affected by the ongoing cladding scandal? Will he arrange a socially distant meeting with me to discuss this further?

Robert Jenrick: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady. The noble Lord Greenhalgh, the building safety Minister, and I have been meeting lenders and UK Finance to discuss the EWS1 form and to urge them to take a more proportionate, risk-based approach. The EWS1 form was, as we heard earlier, designed for those buildings over 18 metres with external wall systems. It is now being used for buildings below 18 metres and buildings without any cladding at all. That is causing misery to thousands of people across the country, and it needs to change.

Bob Neill: I was glad to hear the Secretary of State recognise the continuing issues with the EWS1 forms, and perhaps we can speak further about that. I also welcome the Housing Minister’s acceptance that leaseholders should not bear the costs of remediating cladding for which they have no responsibility. Does the Secretary of State accept that by the same logic, and out of common decency, neither should leaseholders be expected to bear the costs of items such as a waking watch, which arise directly from the cladding itself having been unsafe, because of regulatory failure? This has cost constituents of mine in Northpoint in excess of half a million pounds.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think we have got the message.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend will know that my Department is working closely with the residents of Northpoint to ensure that they have access to funding. They are part of the building safety fund and will benefit from that £1.6 billion. He is right also to draw attention to the waking watch issue, which is increasingly a national scandal in itself; this is a rip-off. We have published research that demonstrates that some operators of these businesses—the contractors—are charging outrageous fees for very little. We will be reporting that to the regulatory authorities and we hope that they will clamp down on these practices as quickly as possible.

Steve Reed: There is growing public concern that the Secretary of State may have misused taxpayers’ money from the £3.6 billion towns fund to boost the Conservative party’s general election campaign, but he can easily clear the matter up. Will he publish, in full, the accounting officer’s advice and the full criteria that he and the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), used when they blocked funding for towns ranked among the 100 most deprived and instead funnelled millions of pounds to each other’s constituencies ahead of the general election?

Robert Jenrick: The Department has already made it clear that a robust process was established—before I became Secretary of State. It was followed to the letter and we will not apologise for investing in communities that have been under-invested in and undervalued by the Labour party for generations. With respect to the accounting officer’s report, accounting officer assessments are not routinely published. That is a matter for the  Department, which I am sure will consider it and reply to the Select Committee in due course. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not deter us from our mission to level up all parts of the country.

Ben Spencer: .

Robert Jenrick: I can do that. My hon. Friend shares my belief that street homelessness is a crisis not just of housing, but of health, mental health and addiction as well. Our approach from the start of the pandemic has been not only to bring people in off the streets into safe and secure accommodation, but to ensure at all times that they have that wraparound support. That was part of the success of Everyone In and it is part of the Protect programme, and it learns from the enormous success of the Housing First pilots that we have initiated in parts of the country.

David Linden: Last week, I met Mencap, which was extremely concerned about the lack of clarity on the shared prosperity fund. Disabled people have benefited enormously from the European social fund, but mere days out from crashing out of the transition period the Government are woefully silent on the future of this. So will the Secretary of State agree to meet myself and Mencap to outline a way forward for the shared prosperity fund and give disabled people clarity?

Robert Jenrick: I would be happy to have that conversation. My officials have been engaging with officials with the devolved Administrations, from all nations of the United Kingdom. We have said time and again that further details of the shared prosperity fund will be published at the spending review, and the hon. Gentleman does not have long to wait for that.

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend might recall that back in the summer I wrote to him, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), Lord Bird, who founded The Big Issue, and Robin Burgess, the chief executive of the Hope Centre in Northampton, who all wanted to recommend to him covid-safe sleeping pod-style accommodation for those who, despite the Government’s best efforts, will be sleeping rough this winter. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what steps he is putting in place to ensure that those who do end up on our streets are still safe and are not forced to be in night shelters, which for so many are truly terrifying places?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for the concern that she evinces in respect of this matter. I am happy to update her. The Government are providing a £10 million cold weather fund to all local authorities, to help them to bring forward self-contained accommodation this winter. Our new £15 million protect programme is providing  dedicated funding to local areas with the highest numbers of rough sleepers. Alongside that there is a £2 million transformation fund to help faith and community centres to move away from night shelters and into more innovative and positive options for shelter guests. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend directed me towards our noble Friend Lord Bird; I am happy to continue to engage with him and her, as is the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst).

Chris Matheson: Setting aside a general funding gap of about £56 million, and including an as yet unconfirmed £7 million income compensation scheme payment, Cheshire West and Chester Council will still be £1 million in the red because of covid activities. Will the Government refer back to the Chancellor’s promise to do “whatever it takes” and promise to make good on the covid funding gap? Or will they once again leave local governments dangling in the wind?

Robert Jenrick: I thank the officers and councillors at Cheshire West and Chester Council for the hard work that they have done already and no doubt will do in the weeks ahead. We have provided a great deal of support to the council: total covid-19 additional funding is £25 million, and total funding from across Government is almost £39 million. As the hon. Gentleman says, that will be followed up by further funding from the sales, fees and charges scheme, which contributes 75p in the pound in respect of lost income for councils. I have also committed—I will say more on this at the spending review—to a similar scheme in respect of lost income for council tax and business rates.

Sally-Ann Hart: My right hon. Friend and this Government have prioritised ending homelessness more than any other Administration. It is widely known that social housing can play a key role in preventing and ending homelessness by providing security of tenure, affordability and a safety net to thousands of individuals and families. This year’s affordable homes programme is welcome, but will my right hon. Friend please update the House on what measures he is taking to increase investment in social housing to help to end homelessness?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend rightly points out the £11.5 billion that we have made available in the next five years to build 180,000 new affordable homes, a significant proportion of which will be for affordable or social rent. We have already heard about the £700 million or so in total that we are spending to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and I direct my hon. Friend towards the abolition of the housing revenue account cap, which allows local authorities to build social homes if they wish to. It is a local authority matter and we encourage them to do so.

Chris Bryant: Tempted as I am to ask a question about tips again, I am going to ask about something completely different: brain injury. Acquired brain injury is a hidden epidemic in this country, and local authorities often have to bear the significant costs when somebody’s neuro-rehabilitation has not been able  to be followed through. With covid this year as well, there will be many thousands of families who would dearly love their loved one to be able to live an independent life, but they need local authorities to be able to step up to the mark. Will the Secretary of State meet me and others who are interested in the subject to see whether there is a way to get better co-reliance among all the different agencies that work with people with brain injury, including people who have neuro-cognitive problems from covid?

Robert Jenrick: I would be delighted to do so. The hon. Gentleman has been a fantastic champion of this cause.

Robbie Moore: The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), has repeatedly defended Tony Newman, who was until recently the leader of the now bankrupt Labour-run Croydon Council. Does my right hon. Friend agree that instead of trying to score political points attacking the Government, the shadow Secretary of State should look a little closer to home, as people are being seriously let down by their Labour councils as public funds are being spent inappropriately? I have seen this—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. In fairness to the Secretary of State, questions are meant to be short and punchy—we are getting very stuck. Come on, Secretary of State, I am sure you have an answer.

Robert Jenrick: The situation in Croydon is deeply concerning. There does appear to have been catastrophic financial mismanagement. Ultimately, it is the people of Croydon who will suffer as a result of that failed council. The council has decided to issue a section 114 notice. We will consider the findings of the urgent review, which concludes later this month.

Kate Osborne: There have been significant reductions in Government funding for children’s social care since 2010, which have led to more children entering care due to false cuts in prevention. Will the Minister ensure that any new funding formula for councils fully recognises the pressures and the associated need, especially in areas with higher deprivation?

Robert Jenrick: As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has said repeatedly today, the funding that we have put into councils since the start of the pandemic —more than £7 billion—has been deployed taking deprivation into consideration to ensure that the councils that need the money the most have the greatest share. As we approach the spending review, I will, of course, be arguing for further funding for local authorities so that they are properly and sustainably financed in the year ahead.

Jonathan Gullis: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I brought before the House my Planning (Proper Maintenance of Land) Bill back in September with the support of Historic England. Will he confirm whether he will adopt this in the planning reform Bill, helping my fight to protect and preserve our nation’s heritage at places such as Price & Kensington in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke?

Robert Jenrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Second Reading of his Bill. We are looking to strengthen the powers and sanctions in respect of both heritage and planning enforcement as part of our White Paper reforms of the planning system. I am sure that he will be lobbying us to ensure that that is part of the wider package.

Justin Madders: When the Secretary of State ignored his own civil servants’ advice on which areas to support with the towns fund, was that on his own initiative or was he receiving instructions from Downing Street?

Robert Jenrick: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman makes party political points without understanding the facts, because no Minister in my Department has ignored the advice of their officials. The Department produced a robust process, which was followed by myself and any other Minister in the Department, so he should be careful before making wild and false accusations.

Natalie Elphicke: For years, some water companies and Ofwat have failed to get a grip on repeated sewage and water flooding, including in the historic town of Deal. As a result, planning objections are mounting against the delivery of much-needed and wanted local homes. Will my right hon. Friend consider what more can be done to ensure that additional planned housing delivery can be matched by additional planned capacity in water, electricity and broadband utilities?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. She is a doughty campaigner for her constituents in Dover, and particularly, in this case, in Deal. She will know that the national planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should make provision for infrastructure, including water supply and energy, through their strategic planning authorities. As to what further we can do, our White Paper on planning reform proposes an infrastructure levy that will get that sort of infrastructure that she refers to in place at the get-go so that communities get not just the housing they need but the infrastructure to go with it.

Virendra Sharma: Ealing Council is facing a funding shortfall of around £30 million even after efficiency savings and delaying investment. That is despite a promise from the Secretary of State that it would have everything that it needed to fight covid-19. Will the Secretary of State stick to his promise and give local authorities what they need, or will he be the one to explain why children’s centres, libraries and sports facilities have to close?

Robert Jenrick: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very much sticking to our promise to support local authorities. We have already given local authorities more than £7 billion since the start of the pandemic, with the sales fees and charges and the business rates and council tax schemes. We are approaching £10 billion of additional support for local authorities, and in his case, in Ealing, it is £30 million, so he is quite wrong to say that we are not supporting his constituents.

Wera Hobhouse: Under the planning laws, Bath and North East Somerset Council in my constituency negotiated a 64.9%biodiversity net gain  as part of planning consent for a new development. Why does the Secretary of State propose to take that opportunity away from local planning authorities, given that the UK has declared a climate emergency?

Robert Jenrick: I am happy to look into what the hon. Lady says, but she is mistaken. This party is doing quite the opposite. We are legislating to embed biodiversity net gain as an essential part of the planning system.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before the urgent question, I wish to make a short statement about deferred Divisions. When arrangements were announced for deferred Divisions with social distancing to take place in the Members’ Library, the period for voting was set from 11.30 am to 3.30 pm. In view of the scale of proxy votes now in place, I propose to reduce the time period. It will now be 11.30 am to 2 pm. This reduction will have effect for any Divisions this Wednesday and any subsequent Wednesday. Deferred Divisions will continue to take place in the Members’ Library. I also remind the House that hon. Members with a proxy vote in operation cannot vote in person during a deferred Division.

Participation in Debates

John Baron: (Urgent Question)  To ask the Leader of the House of Commons if he will make a statement on participation in debates.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this urgent question.
Throughout this year, the pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to the everyday functioning of our parliamentary democracy, but thanks to your tireless efforts, Mr Speaker, and those of the House staff on whom we all rely, so much more has been possible than some might have feared. During the initial lockdown, the hybrid proceedings allowed scrutiny to continue, even if it were not possible for the Government to proceed with their legislative agenda in a timely manner. During the period after Parliament returned in June, we were able to resume legislative scrutiny both in the Chamber and in Committees, even if other aspects of our normal work, like Westminster Hall, remained silent. During recent weeks, Westminster Hall has resumed its work, even if it has not yet been possible for all Members to take part.
Throughout this year, our approach has been to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed upon us. This is a continuing process, and our arrangements remain under review. In practice, that means applying two principles consistently. First, we must continue to explore what more is possible. To that end, I have worked with the House authorities throughout the year in support of their efforts to surmount the technical and capacity constraints that they have faced. Secondly, both Parliament as an institution and Members individually should follow both the letter and spirit of public health guidance.
As an institution, we have treated Parliament as a workplace no different from any other in making it covid-secure. As individual Members of Parliament, we are no different from any other key worker up and down the country seeking to discharge their responsibilities within the constraints imposed by the pandemic. We as MPs want to do the best we can for our constituents within the context of varying personal circumstances and experiences, and of course developing national and local guidance.
In last week’s business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a brave and moving appeal to be allowed to contribute more to our proceedings through virtual participation. This followed the appeals of a number of other Members. While my understanding is that capacity constraints prevent us from extending Westminster Hall debates to Members participating virtually, my hon. Friend has certainly convinced me that we should seek to do more to support additional virtual participation in the Commons Chamber.
I have therefore decided that, in line with the Government advice that the clinically extremely vulnerable should not go into work, we should work with the House authorities to find a solution. I am exploring how we can support additional virtual participation in the Commons, despite capacity constraints, for those who  are clinically extremely vulnerable, and aim to bring a motion before the House. This is the latest step in our work to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed upon us, enabling the Government to legislate and the House to conduct scrutiny, thus enabling us, together, to carry out our collective duties to the British people.

John Baron: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. As someone who is shielding with his wife, who is herself clinically extremely vulnerable, and having, with others, raised this issue with you, Mr Speaker, with the Whips and with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last week, we think that the Government have been wrong to forbid Members with proxy votes to contribute virtually to Chamber debates. After all, we have been able to ask the Prime Minister questions, we have been able to ask Secretaries of State questions, and we have been able to participate in all votes. It therefore makes little sense to us that we could participate in the debates only if we appeared in person—something that is not possible if shielding or living with people who are. Of course we accept that there is a balance to be struck between continuing the essential work of Parliament and accommodating the exceptional situation of the pandemic, but the current measures do not strike that right balance. They have, however inadvertently, created a hierarchy of MPs, which few MPs welcome.
I welcome this announcement from my right hon. Friend, in so far as it goes, and look forward to hearing how the review pans out. Many colleagues across the House will also be pleased at the announcement. However, he is still excluding Members who are shielding with wives, husbands or partners or who are themselves clinically extremely vulnerable. This exclusion is insensitive to family situations, and I ask him to think again, because it makes even less sense now, given his announcement to the House today. I suggest that there is little room for procedural purity in a pandemic. Will he therefore meet me, virtually, so that we can discuss this further?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I can certainly answer the last bit of the question first. I would always be delighted to meet my hon. Friend at any point, and we can do it virtually or simply by telephone, if that is convenient for him. As Leader of the House, I have made it clear always to all right hon. and hon. Members that it is my role to have as many meetings as right hon. and hon. Members want, so it would be a pleasure to see my hon. Friend. He raises a very important point and one on which I have the greatest sympathy with him and other right hon. and hon. Members: it is, of course, difficult for those with family responsibilities and those with obligations both to themselves and to others who are concerned about their safety and the safety of members of their family. There are, however, a number of constraints on what can be done practically, so these are the considerations we have to take into account before making the decision as to what we are to do in this Chamber and how we are to react to all the various circumstances of individual Members of Parliament.
First, it is important that the House of Commons is a covid-secure workplace, and— very much under your auspices, Mr Speaker, but also under the House authorities’ —that has been ensured. Great steps have been taken since March to ensure that covid security is of the highest level. I think there would be few workplaces in  the country that can compete with that. That is important because ensuring that people who come into this place are safe has been your highest priority, Mr Speaker, and also, of course, the high priority of the Clerk of the House of Commons, who has the technical legal responsibility for the safety of this place.
The second point is that it is important that legislation passes and that the Government are held to account in an effective way. There, I look at what happened in May and June, when a number of activities were cancelled altogether: we did not have Backbench business days and we did not have Westminster Hall, but we had three days a week primarily of Government business. The Government business was very heavily truncated and Ministers, to my mind—and I think of many right hon. and hon. Members —were not fully or properly held to account during that period. It was, in the words of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, “sub-optimal”, a word that became very fashionable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) is very much a leader of fashion, and certainly in linguistic fashion she set the tone with the word “sub-optimal”. But it also meant that Government legislation was not getting through in a timely manner. Government legislation is not just important from the point of view of Government, it is important from the point of view of democratic propriety. The Government were elected just about a year ago on a manifesto and they have a duty to the British people to deliver on what was proposed, in addition to ensuring that we are prepared for 31 December, which is quite an important date, because on that day the transition period ends and legislation has to be in place to ensure that. Unfortunately, with the fully hybrid proceedings, that was not working and that is why we had to move back to a more physical Parliament to ensure that we could deliver on the manifesto commitments, ensure that the Government were held to account, allow for Backbench business debates and get on with business.
There is one other very important and fundamental point which I would like to make to my hon. Friend, because I am sure he will understand it and will sympathise with it. As Members of Parliament, we are key workers and we must behave as other key workers do. Last week, I had to write to a constituent of mine in exactly the same position as my hon. Friend. The Government guidance is that if you are living with somebody who is clinically extremely vulnerable, it does not mean that you should not go to work in a covid-safe environment. That is the advice of Her Majesty’s Government to our constituents, and I do not think it would be right of me to stand here and say that we should treat Members of Parliament differently from the way we are treating our constituents. Indeed, I believe it is of fundamental importance that, as we carry out our duty as key workers, we must consider how other key workers are operating, and we must be shoulder to shoulder with them. So to ensure the legislative programme and proper accountability, we are able to make further steps to allow more remote participation, but we are not able to make remote participation unlimited, much though I think everybody sympathises with my hon. Friend and other Members in similar positions.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for  granting it. Why did the Leader of the House think it was necessary to make some sort of announcement on Twitter without having the courtesy to let the House know? He will know that I wrote to him on Friday, along with the chair of the Human Rights Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), to ask him to look again at participation of hon. and right hon. Members in debates. The Leader of the House has been warned on a number of occasions that this would happen, and on each occasion he has said no, no, no, without even considering what we have been saying.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: everyone was moved by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) when she asked at business questions why she was not allowed to take part in the debate—if she had been able to, imagine how someone going through what she is going through could have informed that debate.
I have previously raised the point that there are two classes of Members, and that that is undemocratic. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is our duty to be here but it is our duty to represent our constituents, and the Leader of the House is suppressing and extinguishing the voices of right hon. and hon. Members in that debate. Effectively, he is saying that all Members are equal but some are more equal than others. Where have we heard that before?
Will the Leader of the House now accept that he has excluded hon. Members from doing their democratic duty for their constituents, and will he please revert back to the world-leading system that worked? Such debates should be for every Member, not just a certain class. Why should hon. Members be identified as clinically extremely vulnerable? That is a privacy issue.
The contacts of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) may well have been identified and isolated, but he did not have a proxy and he was in the queue—that means that he has exposed all hon. Members who were in that queue. Will the Leader of the House look again at remote voting? He said that the system broke down, but that was once and it was corrected. We are so far down the road from the start. The Lords are actually undertaking seven to eight hours of virtual proceedings and they are now looking at the second Chamber. Debate is controlled by call lists, anyway, so will the right hon. Gentleman look at Westminster Hall and Public Bill Committees, which involve small groups and could be done by Zoom? Will he also confirm how long the proposed changes will last and commit to cross-party talks before they are removed?
Finally, I wish a speedy recovery to the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Ashfield and all other Members who are isolating.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Indeed. We all wish all hon. Members who are suffering from covid a speedy recovery and let us hope that those who are isolating have not caught the disease.
I really would not hold up their lordships’ House as a model. Having a voting system that collapses is deeply unsatisfactory and meant that their business for a day was lost. That was a failure of their system—

Chris Elmore: Embarrassing!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, that was embarrassing—I happen to agree with him on this occasion.

Dawn Butler: No—you’re embarrassing!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is the risk of sedentary interventions; one hears part of them, but not necessary all of them in their fullness. I point out to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that that is why “sedentary chuntering”, as the former Speaker used to call it, is invariably not wise.
I turn back to the substance of the points made by the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). She did indeed write to me over the weekend. It was important that these issues were in the public domain and being considered and that the Government, as they said they would, were keeping them under review. As I also said, I was very moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). How could one not be? She is a remarkable person. It has to be said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) has also made similar appeals of a very moving kind.
It is important to recognise that the Government do listen to what right hon. and hon. Members are saying. The Government recognise the strength of arguments put forward and that there is a special set of people with the most troubling conditions who, under the current rules, which came in Thursday a week past, are being advised not to go to work. That was not the case before then, so when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made her requests, the Government guidance was not of that kind; it had changed by the time my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made her appeal. It is an appeal that many Members feel should be answered, and that is what we are trying to do.
The right hon. Member for Walsall South rightly calls for there to be equality among Members, and indeed there is. Every Member who is not extremely clinically vulnerable is in the same position as other key workers, which is that, as long as their workplace is covid-secure—that is a fundamental qualification—they are not expected to stay away from work. I reiterate the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that we should expect to behave and be treated in the same way as other key workers. That is fundamental. The nation is facing this virus together, and there is not a different situation for us as opposed to other key workers.

Chris Bryant: They are not shirking.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not saying that anybody is shirking; I am simply saying that we are in the same position as other key workers, as I think is right and proper.
On the issue of people revealing their medical conditions, I have of course thought very carefully about that because I know that many people would not want to reveal what their medical condition is. The issue is that either we would have to have an entirely virtual Parliament with all Members Zooming in—otherwise one could  say, “That person has something wrong and that person doesn’t,”—which we found from experience did not work, or we would have to have it for a very small group.
The very small group have a choice. They are free to contribute, with a very wide range of rights, in interrogative proceedings in a way that allows our business to be carried out properly. The limitation remains only in those areas of business that need debate and the flow of debate. Exemptions will be made for a limited number of people, who will have the choice whether to tell the House about their need to contribute virtually because they are severely clinically vulnerable.
If I may use you, Mr Speaker, as a case in point—I hope you will forgive me—you have brought your diabetes to the attention of people by being open about it, and some Members wish to do that. I absolutely understand that other Members do not wish to, and nobody will be forced to reveal a medical condition if they do not wish to do so.

Peter Bottomley: I think the whole House will welcome the flexibility that is following on from my right hon. Friend’s review of the situation. May I put it to him that it might be better, when he has developed proposals in consultation with you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities, for them to be put to the House for debate, with the possibility of amendment, and for it to be for the House to decide what instructions to give you on what should be allowed?
I think there is something inelegant—perhaps I am taking the words that my right hon. Friend would have used were he still a Back Bencher—about the Government saying what Back Benchers should be able to contribute in this House. We pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has conducted himself as Leader of the House; he has been helpful to most MPs most of the time. As he said on Thursday:
“With debates, we need to have the proper holding to account of Ministers, which is the purpose of the debates, and to have the interventions that make a debate, rather than a series of statements. It is a question of striking a careful balance, in these difficult times, between ensuring that Parliament can serve its constituents in full and making sure that Members can complete their duties as safely and as effectively as possible.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1071.]
Those words match what our hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, and others. I think the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) spoke in the same way. I put it to the Leader of the House that the sooner the review allows extra flexibility, the better. We are not asking to go back to a fully virtual Chamber.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the Father of the House for his question and his, I think, generous comments. I will certainly interpret them that way, though they may have been slightly two-edged. It is very important that the House comes to a decision on this, and it is a matter for the House how it should be done. There will be conversations in the normal way, as there always are, and I hope that it will not be indiscreet of me to say that I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, on Friday after Thursday’s business questions. The House always comes to its own decision. The Government may propose, but it is for the House to dispose, and I am sure that the House will come to its conclusion in due course.

Tommy Sheppard: Well, at least the Leader of the House has now accepted that, if Members are not able to be physically present, it is because of legitimate concerns they have about their own and the public’s health, rather than because they are work-shy and trying to avoid their responsibilities. Maybe we should be grateful for small mercies, but really, this is far too little, far too late.
The Leader of the House keeps suggesting that MPs are key workers, but that does not mean that we need to be in the Chamber in order to do our work. Indeed, in any other workplace, we would be criticising employers that did not provide facilities for their workers to work from home, especially when we know them to be available. Introducing virtual facilities on a restricted basis is not going to work. Members should not have to disclose private information about their health in order to have the right to represent their constituents. That is why he must trust that, if a Member chooses not to be here, it is for a proper and honourable reason, and he must therefore allow all Members to take advantage of the virtual facility.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The default position should be that Members attend the House to carry out the business of the House. We are key workers, and we have a job to do. I am slightly surprised that the Scottish National party values democracy so lowly that it does not think that it is important to be here and to be actively involved in the democracy of our nation. I know that the SNP is not perhaps the greatest admirer of this Parliament that we could find, but they are still Members of it, and they are here to represent their constituents—or at least some are—and this is an important contribution to the national debate.
The reason for making exceptional provision is exactly that—it is exceptional. It is exactly what other workplaces are doing to help, aid and assist those who are not able to turn up for work because of the Government’s advice, which is that if someone is extremely clinically vulnerable, they should not go into work. That is being facilitated. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; it is not a matter of choice for MPs. The default position is that Members should be here to do their job. That is their duty. There are some people in exceptional circumstances who need alternative arrangements to be made, and the House of Commons is quite correctly facilitating those and helping them to work from home, to ensure that they have a good connection and to participate. I hope we will agree to help them participate in a broader range of our activities.

Karen Bradley: I thank the many Members who contacted my Committee following our call for evidence, wanting to see exactly this change. I am sure that they were very pleased when they saw the news on Twitter last night. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said: this should be a matter for the House and needs a full debate. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that these changes will not impact on the work of Select Committees? It is very important that they are able to access digital services to carry out their important work.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is right to raise that point about Select Committees. There is a limit to the broadcasting resources within the House and what  they can do. That is why it has not been possible to extend this to Westminster Hall. Select Committees can continue to meet virtually. I would be nervous to give absolute carte blanche, because if every Select Committee wanted to meet at exactly the same time on one particular day and the Chamber was also in action, that may stretch the resources. Assuming that Select Committees arrange their affairs in such a way that a reasonable number of them are sitting at any one time, I do not believe that these proposals will make it harder for Select Committees to meet.
My right hon. Friend is right to explain that there is a balance in terms of the resources there are to ensure the participation of Members in the various activities that take place. Sometimes it is thought that all that goes on in Parliament takes place in the Chamber, but of course that is not the case. Business was not getting through in May and June because of the inability for other aspects of business to take place that are not necessarily seen, particularly the work in Public Bill Committees and statutory instrument Committees.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will know that I am a long-serving Member of Parliament and an active parliamentarian who so much wants to be back in the Chamber doing the job that I have been doing for over 40 years. But can I say that, if anything is sub-optimal here, it is the Leader of the House? The fact of the matter is: he knows it is the Speaker’s view—Mr Speaker, I hope I can quote you on this—that this is not a safe environment for us to attend. That is the fact of the matter and that is the truth. I would have to say to the Leader of the House that my responsibility, my key and prime duty, is to my constituents. He is the man who is stopping me serving as a full Member of Parliament. Indeed, I would not be able to do my Select Committee if it had not been for, not him, but the Speaker and his intercession. The fact of the matter is he is sub-optimal—he should resign.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Leader of the House, just one second. I did not know that was going to be raised. I think I need to put clarity around what I did say. If people are vulnerable, I did say that I do not want vulnerable people to be put at risk. Let us clear that up. This is a covid-secure workplace.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That clarification is extremely helpful because the Clerk of the House, I think, would be extremely nervous if it were being said that this were not a covid-secure workplace. The work that has been done to ensure that has been absolutely extraordinary, and we ought to thank once again the House authorities, but also the Doorkeepers who have stewarded our Divisions, the security staff and the cleaning people who have worked incredibly hard and who have been here even when we have not been. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his view very clearly. It is not one I share.

Tracey Crouch: I am slightly embarrassed by the kind comments about my question on Thursday because others—my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham  and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), whose UQ it is—have been raising this issue for some time and really it is they, rather than I, who deserve plaudits. That said, may I thank the Leader of the House for calling me on Saturday to advise me of his intention to allow Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in proceedings here in the Chamber? I am looking forward to being able to raise important issues on behalf of my constituents as and when I can during the rest of my treatment.
I am sorry if I missed it, but could the Leader of the House confirm when the changes will come in? While I absolutely recognise his points about the technical challenges of participation in Westminster Hall, could he please reassure the House that he will continue to explore options for participation in the second Chamber? While here, will he join me in thanking the extraordinary efforts of the digital and broadcasting teams, who have done amazing things to allow Members to be here by, as the Prime Minister puts it, the “magic of modern technology”?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is enormously gracious in her thanks to the digital and broadcasting team, who not only have managed to introduce this new system since March, but have had to move offices at the same point and kept it going seamlessly. It is one of the smaller teams within the House service, so I think what they have managed to do is absolutely phenomenal.
I hope to introduce the motions as soon as possible. They are being written, I think, by wise Clerks as I am speaking. It is important, I think—I hope this answers my hon. Friend’s question about Westminster Hall—to recognise that, if we do it quickly, it must be limited. If we do it for the Chamber for the extremely clinically vulnerable, that can be done quite quickly; if we were to try to look at Westminster Hall, that would take considerably longer because we would need additional resources. But, as I have said before, things are under review, particularly for those whom the Government are advising not to go into work, and that is the extremely clinically vulnerable. So, yes, it will be done quickly and we will keep Westminster Hall under review.

Margaret Hodge: Since the Leader of the House deliberately chose to exclude some MPs from debates, I have been trying to do my work in different ways. However, for example, it has taken up to five months to extract a response to my letters, not just on covid issues but on matters that are equally vital to my constituents, such as the combustible cladding scandal and the survival of local football clubs.
I welcome warmly today’s announcement, particularly in relation to MPs with cancer and other conditions, but what about the rest of us who are simply heeding the Government’s advice in not coming into the House? I have to say to the Leader of the House that we are not like other key workers, who can be replaced if they cannot attend; MPs have no substitutes. How can he continue to justify deliberately preventing my constituents from being properly and thoroughly represented in Parliament?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I very much doubt that any of the right hon. Lady’s constituents would say that she does not represent them effectively. She has always been a  powerful campaigner and an effective voice of the Opposition and of the Labour party over many years, so I do not think anybody would dream of saying that.
May I answer the right hon. Lady’s question in parts? First, as relates to correspondence, that has been a problem that has been raised on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. I have taken it up with all members of the Cabinet to emphasise the importance of timely responses to Members—not just to their written correspondence but to written questions. I reiterate the promise that I have made to all hon. and right hon. Members that if anyone has a particular problem with a particular Department, my office will take that up for them. I have done that for a number of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House, and it does seem to get answers. I can only apologise on behalf of the Government that there have been delays in responses because, to be fair, of the pressures of the pandemic earlier in the process. I am reassured that things are now getting better, but the right hon. Lady must feel free to raise with me any instances where replies are not being received.
As regards the decision being made today, we are following the advice that the Government have laid down, and that is that the clinically extremely vulnerable should not be going into work but that other people are able to go into work if it is a covid-safe environment. As this is a covid-safe environment, people are able to come in if they are not clinically extremely vulnerable. Shielding as a concept ended in the summer and therefore it is not part of the current Government advice.

Roger Gale: In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House referred to the possibility of maximising what was possible. Mr Speaker, through your good offices and that of your technical team, we know that a hybrid Parliament is perfectly— [Inaudible.] Not only that; it is exercised, for example, at Prime Minister’s Question Time every week. But hitherto, those of us who are not able to attend have been denied the opportunity to take part in debates.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and my—[Inaudible.]—are both senior members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Throughout the last six months, we have been taking part in plenary sessions, debates and committee hearings perfectly satisfactorily in a hybrid fashion. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would suggest that this House is not capable of doing something that Europe is capable of, so my question to him is simply this. At the last vote, 200 Members were denied the opportunity to attend, speak or vote. This time, following the lead taken by the Father of the House, will he make sure that there is a proper debate and that every Member of Parliament who wishes to do so is enabled to participate and to vote?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend was momentarily interrupted, and that is one of the problems with remote participation; the quality of the audio is not invariably perfect. Although that works during Question Time, it is not a good enough way of having a debate, nor did we find when we had the hybrid Parliament that debates of legislation worked effectively. I would also point out that when we had the hybrid Parliament, we were meeting for only three days a week, and we were very short on  Opposition days and had no Backbench Business days, both of which have now been restored. The act of holding the Government to account and, indeed, of getting legislation through was less easy, and that is why it was decided, by a vote of the House, to return to a more physically present Parliament, especially for debates and therefore particularly for legislation.
I would say to my right hon. Friend that we are ensuring that Parliament is working effectively, and we are going to make, I hope, with the agreement of the House, an exception for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. He does, though, ask a question that is something of a conundrum, because we cannot change the rules until we have voted to change the rules, so the vote to change the rules will be of fundamental importance for allowing those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to attend and speak in debates.

Lindsay Hoyle: We have a lot to get through, so I ask for speedy questions and answers. That will help us all.

Wera Hobhouse: With due respect, I disagree with the Leader of the House. It has been proved that we can vote remotely, thanks to the wonderful work of the digital team, and that is what we should return to, but may I ask a question about Westminster Hall debates, which seem to be the crux of many of the issues that have been raised? If we cannot bring Westminster Hall debates back because of technical issues, will the Leader of the House please look into how Westminster Hall-style debates were brought back before October by conducting them in Committee Room 5, where there are the technical possibilities?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is an element of choice, as to what the House wants. We brought back Westminster Hall because regular representations were made to me that people wanted to have Westminster Hall back. If the House does not want Westminster Hall, that would be a matter for the House, but I would be very surprised if that were the case. The hon. Lady opened her comments by saying she disagreed with me. Dare I say it, Mr Speaker, but that is very reassuring. She is, after all, a Liberal Democrat, and I am always very nervous if a Liberal Democrat agrees with me.

Douglas Chapman: It has been said in this House that it is the duty of Members to participate physically in debates to show people that it is safe to return to work. With England in full lockdown and “work from home” a message across the UK, is it not the duty of every Member to show that working remotely can be done effectively, or, unlike every other Parliament across the length and breadth of Europe, is that something that is simply beyond the wit of the House?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The advice is absolutely clear that people should work from home if they can do so effectively, but this Chamber does not work effectively when people are not physically present. To reiterate the points I have already made, to ensure that the Government are held to account and that the Government’s legislative programme can be proceeded with, we need to be here physically, because otherwise both of those cannot happen properly. One of them is to the advantage of Opposition Members, and that is the holding to account. They should be pleased to have the opportunity to hold the  Government to account thoroughly, vigorously and with full vim, rather than thinking that the Government should have an easy ride over a virtual setting. I am rather surprised that they are so nervous about participating in the process of scrutiny.
On the other hand, from the Government’s point of view, we wish to ensure that the legislative agenda on which we were elected just under a year ago is proceeded with, and that is our democratic right, because we have a mandate to do it. On the one hand, proper scrutiny, and on the other, a legislative programme. Those require us to be here to do that properly. We need to stand with or, in socialist terms, show solidarity with other key workers who are continuing to go into work. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) points to the Lords. I remind her again that they had a vote that failed—a failure of the Lords—which upset the business for the next day. We have not had a single failure in this House, thanks to our model speakership.

Bernard Jenkin: May I report to the House through you, Mr Speaker, that the Liaison Committee met last week and discussed this matter at some length? Will my right hon. Friend respect how strongly many Chairs of Select Committees feel that a significant number of them are unable to carry out their constitutional function, because they cannot risk exposing themselves or their families to covid infection? It means that they are unable to speak to their own Committees’ reports during debates, to make statements to launch reports by their Committees, to lead debates on those reports or to speak on legislation that their Committees have scrutinised. Will my right hon. Friend please address that urgently?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very concerned and sorry to hear that so many members of the Liaison Committee are extremely clinically vulnerable. That is certainly troubling, but I hope that the steps that are being proposed and will be taken will be helpful to them.

Jim Shannon: I applaud the Leader of the House and also you, Mr Speaker, for the guidance and leadership that have been given. Does the Leader of the House not agree that engagement in this place is what we are elected to do, and that the proper process should be followed? Does he agree that the proxy voting scheme, for example, is an essential component of moving forward in a different way in these peculiar times? Can he envisage a time-limited way of allowing greater engagement during these times?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is an absolute model of parliamentary engagement and of the ability to stand up for constituents and ensure that they are represented. He does it with aplomb and vigour. Yes, we need to ensure that there is as much engagement as possible, and the point I am trying to get across is that having a functioning, active democratic Chamber is not simply nice to have, like some sort of additional bauble on the British constitution; it is fundamental to how we are governed. It is fundamental to how the extraordinary laws that have been introduced are scrutinised, and that requires almost all of us to be here, but we can make exceptions for those who are extremely clinically vulnerable.

Philip Dunne: I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee. I am one of those Select Committee Chairs who do not feel that we are able to fulfil our function—not as a bauble of Parliament as the Leader of the House has just suggested—because we are unable to attend for medical reasons. I have not been able to participate in a debate since the middle of March and I do not feel that I am fulfilling my function as a Member of Parliament properly. This was brought home to me only last week, as I am one of the two current MPs who are commissioners of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and I was unable to participate in the Armistice Day debate on 11 November, despite having asked for a special dispensation from your office, Mr Speaker, which you were quite properly unable to give me.
Also last week, had it not been for the consequences of these new restrictions, I would have been introducing on Friday the only private Member’s Bill that I have ever been fortunate enough to have drawn in the ballot. I urge my right hon. Friend please to give some urgency to his deliberations on introducing this new measure, which I welcome wholeheartedly, to ensure that by the time my private Member’s Bill comes back to this House on Friday 15 January, I will be able to deliver it in person.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I completely sympathise with my right hon. Friend. It must be very frustrating not being able to participate in the activities of the House, and I hope that the proposals being brought forward to help those who are extremely clinically vulnerable will be of assistance. It is important that this House actively holds the Government to account and scrutinises them, and that the legislative programme is proceeded with, and that is exactly the balance that the Government are trying to achieve, by ensuring that scrutiny is properly done and that legislation is properly debated, and by allowing those who have exceptionally difficult circumstances to be able to participate more fully. But it is a balance, and it has been a balance as to what can or cannot be provided all the way through. We have had different requests in different directions for what the resources should be devoted to—hence the question raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) as to whether we should close Westminster Hall and use the resources for something else. There is always a balance to be struck.

Dawn Butler: It has been fascinating listening to the Leader of the House, and I cannot help but think that he is not only gaslighting MPs but gaslighting the whole country in his responses. Paragraph 4.7 of “Erskine May” says that the Leader of the House is
“primarily responsible for the arrangement of government business”
and
“has a general responsibility to safeguard…the decencies and to ensure that Business arrangements have regard to what is right and proper in the interests of the House as a whole.”
It goes on to state:
“The leadership of the House is not a statutory office, and nor is the Leader of the House formally appointed by the Crown.”
I think the Leader is somewhat overreaching in his suggestion that he should decide who should take part in the debates in this House as a Member of Parliament.  The current arrangements are not in the best interests of the House as a whole. I love being in the House of Commons and I love debating, but we are in a pandemic at the moment and covid is asymptomatic. This place is full of it, whether we like it or not, and we are putting 600 people at risk every time we are here.
My Remote Participation in House of Commons Proceedings (Motion) Bill could just be adopted by the Government instead of being debated in January. I urge the Leader of the House to adopt the Bill and meet me and other Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), to talk about how we can have proper participation and ensure that our democracy is safe and that we hold the Government to account.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I reiterate the point I made earlier: I am always willing to meet hon. and right hon. Members, in part because of what it says in “Erskine May” about the responsibilities of the Leader of the House, which I am well aware of. That is why I have made it so clear that I expect Ministers to respond in a reasonably punctual way to Members’ letters and other communications. It is important that this House is respected by the Executive; that is absolutely fundamental.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I will decide who speaks in debates. I certainly do not do that; that is decided on a daily basis by Mr Speaker. Terms of reference for any proposed changes would have to be decided by a motion that has to be passed by the House. It is a matter for the House to decide, as it will do. The Leader of the House does not have, or would want to have—certainly I would not want it—the ability to decide who speaks in debates. That is a matter for the Speaker on a daily basis and otherwise by a motion of the House.

Bob Blackman: It is somewhat ironic that when my right hon. Friend brings forward his proposals the only people who will not be allowed to participate in the debate are those who are forced to shield. They will therefore not be able to participate in the decision making, other than having a proxy vote. There is clearly no reason why Adjournment debates could not be accorded a position in the Chamber in future if we are to have virtual proceedings. I realise my right hon. Friend enjoys, as I do, the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber and the opportunity to intervene, and clearly we need to make sure that that is still enabled. Will he set out the requirements on Members of Parliament to provide their reasons for shielding or being forced to be clinically vulnerable? Will he also consider the fact that the current lockdown in England will expire on 2 December? By the time we get around to this motion, it may be that we are out of the lockdown and into a new structure completely.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the timeliness, and I am very keen to ensure that this motion is brought forward soon so that it can be decided by this House soon. He makes the point that things may change again on 3 December. It is my view, but it will warrant further discussion in the House, that the length of period for this proposal should coincide with the duration of the other motions, which all expire on 30 March. It would be unfair and unreasonable to create uncertainty for people who are extremely clinically  vulnerable by having a very short timeline on this proposal or a separate one from the other existing exceptions to our normal proceedings.

Vicky Foxcroft: I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has finally decided that increased remote participation is possible for some once again. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to him, however, that I and many other colleagues wish he had done this so much sooner, rather than shutting us out of numerous important debates. I hear what he has just said about the timeframe, so will he confirm that these arrangements will stay in place until we are safely through this pandemic, thereby enabling us fully to represent our constituents in this place?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Madam Deputy Speaker—I got it right this time and actually noticed that there had been a change of Chair—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point that she raises. It is important to have a degree of certainty, so I reiterate that it is proposed that the measures would be in place until 30 March. I think that is the right approach to take. I do not want to pre-empt the decision that will be made in March, because—who knows?—we could be in a very different position by then, but I assume that if other virtual participation continues at that point, if we are still in the midst of the pandemic, it would be reasonable to continue with such proposals as are likely to be brought forward in the near future.

Angus MacNeil: With UK productivity at a staggering 22% lower than that of France, Parliament is hardly helping when I can vote faster, when enabled, in a byre on a croft in the Outer Hebrides than I have ever managed to at the Palace of Westminster. Recently, while chairing the Select Committee on International Trade in 21st century fashion, I had to suspend so that Members could go back to 18th century fashion and vote in a Division in the House of Commons. Those who were interested in the Japan trade deal watched the Secretary of State for International Trade having to leave for the indignity of such time wasting. Surely, productivity and the involvement in the democratic process could now be improved by having a sensible system again during the pandemic. We did it before; can we not do it again? The main job of parliamentarians is to vote and to speak. Are those things not curtailed by the Leader of the House?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is nice to see the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar back and smiling at us. We missed him greatly in the debate last week on parliamentary boundaries. As he was not there, I do not know if he noticed that I proposed that his seat should be made permanently in his honour, as such a fine representative of his good constituents. However, as regards to whether we are in the 18th century or the 21st century, it is important that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to meet Ministers, speak to Ministers, lobby Ministers, speak to each other, lobby each other and raise their complaints. I think we need to be physically present to do that. The hon. Gentleman makes an enormous contribution, normally on a daily basis, to this House, when he sits in his usual place and lobs in little grenades of wit and wisdom that keep Ministers on their toes and Opposition spokesmen paying attention, so the sooner he is back here the better. [Interruption.]  I am being heckled by his own Front Benchers. I am not sure they are as keen to have his wit and wisdom as I am.

Debbie Abrahams: I would like to hold the Leader of the House to account on his misquoting of covid guidance, which clearly says that if people cannot work from home, they can go to work—not the other way around. He also said that a fully virtual House would impede the Government’s legislative programme. The Institute for Government has clearly shown that that was not the case in the spring. Many right hon. and hon. Friends have made a strong case that current proceedings are discriminatory. In line with equality legislation, in particular section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, it is the Government’s duty to identify and address the barriers that are contributing to that and to make reasonable adjustments. As such, what equality impact assessment have the Government undertaken in relation to restricting the participation in debates of Members who may not be physically on the parliamentary estate for public health reasons? And why, if the Lords has a fully virtual system, doesn’t the Commons?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To answer the last point first, we are not copying the Lords because the Lords’ system, as I keep on saying, breaks down and it is really important that we have votes that actually happen. On the hon. Lady’s other point, it is simply inaccurate to say that the Government’s legislative programme steamed ahead in May and June. It did not, because we had no Public Bill Committees.
Yes, we could have Second Reading debates, but they were extraordinarily limited. Legislation always has an effect on people’s lives. It is always important. We do not legislate over trivial things. We legislate on things that have an effect on the people we represent, usually to remove some liberty that they have previously enjoyed. To take that away lightly, after two hours of debate, hardly seems to me a proper way to legislate. Not only did we find that the programme was not advancing with any speed, but that it was completely clogged up at the Committee stage. We were also not serving our constituents properly by not debating fully the issues that were being considered.
As regards the Equality Act, the House authorities worked tirelessly to respond to the challenge created by covid-19 and put in place measures to protect those who work here and ensure the participation of those who have not been able to attend in person. What we are doing on the remote participation of those who are extremely clinically vulnerable is a further step to ensure that those who cannot come physically, because of health reasons outside their control, will be able to do so. That seems to me to be fully in accord with best practice in equalities.

Alicia Kearns: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the Deputy Speaker are in no doubt that, if I could do so safely, there is no question but that I would be in the Chamber participating in business. While I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision, will he consider a specific exemption mechanism for MPs who are not classed as clinically  extremely vulnerable but who have been told in no uncertain terms by medical professionals to stay at home? I am a pregnant woman in my third trimester, and the Royal College of Midwives and all clinicians advise that if I contract covid, I am 60% more likely to end up on a ventilator or risk the pre-term birth of my baby. Other key workers in their third trimester have been exempted by employers, so will he consider the same mechanism for MPs?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I would say that it is a matter on which she should consult her doctors. If they think that the risk is such that she is de facto extremely clinically vulnerable, I think that she would be covered by the proposals that will be introduced. She absolutely right to raise this, and it is necessary for people to work out with their doctors whether they are extremely clinically vulnerable. From what she is saying, the risk sounds to me, although I am no expert, to be high, and consultation with her doctors may well put her in that category, but that is a matter for her to take up with her doctors.

Andrew Gwynne: May I tell the Leader of the House that I would love to be there—I love the cut and thrust of the Chamber. He may not know that I contracted covid-19 in early March, and it developed into long covid. Eight months later, on my good days, I struggle only with cognitive brain fog, but on my worst days, it is still sheer exhaustion and debilitating headaches on top. Thankfully, the good days now outnumber the bad, but I cannot plan which it is going to be. Virtual participation in questions, UQs, statements and Select Committees has been a godsend, but I have had to miss out on important debates, including on key issues that affect my constituency and, indeed, on the subject of long covid. Will he look at that again?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very sorry to hear that, but I did know that the hon. Gentleman had been suffering from long covid. I wish him extremely well—it sounds extraordinarily debilitating and difficult for him. I am not unsympathetic to the requests that have been made, but this is all a question of getting the balance right between ensuring that the House has effective debates, with legislation introduced in a timely manner and following the guidance that we are giving to the country at large—I reiterate that it applies to people who are extremely clinically vulnerable—as we need to ensure that provision is made for those who are told not to come into work. I wish him extremely well in his recovery, and I hope that it goes from strength to strength.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the Leader of the House on uniting the House almost entirely, although in opposition, to what he has said. He makes great play of the fact that the House is a covid-safe environment, and I praise the House for that. What he cannot do is guarantee that my journey from home by tram to Manchester, by train to London and by tube across London can ever be covid safe. That is the reality for those of us who are not London-based. I have the necessary clinical exemption, but I can still not take part fully as a Member of Parliament to defend the rights of my constituents in Westminster Hall debates. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that to my constituents and place  on the record the evidence that says that at the moment it is not technologically feasible to make that happen in Westminster Hall?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The issue around Westminster Hall is what I am told by the House authorities, which seems to me to be a reasonably authoritative position. It is a question of resources. As I said earlier, the broadcasting team is relatively small and has been working under a great deal of pressure to try to deliver not just the Chamber but Select Committees performing remotely. Those resources are not unlimited and have to be shared in a way that gives the greatest satisfaction to the most people. Westminster Hall cannot be broadcast currently with remote participation unless resources were to be taken from somewhere else. That is a question ultimately for the House if it wanted to lessen, perhaps, the facilities available to Select Committees or take resources from somewhere else. That is what I have been told by the House authorities, and I am sure that what they have told me is accurate.

Edward Leigh: After nearly an hour of being battered from all sides, it is about time that someone supported the Leader of the House and did the unpopular thing of defending the Government. May I say that I welcome what he said and the moderate way in which he said it? While I am happy with extending this provision to people who are clinically vulnerable, may I urge him not to bow to pressure and extend virtual debating to everybody, giving everyone carte blanche? We are in danger in this country of creating two worlds: an Aldous Huxley “Brave New World” where middle class people can sit in the comfort of their own homes and do their jobs and ordinary people are forced out into the workplace. Our job is to set an example and be here. “Parliament” comes from the French “parler”, and it does not mean talking at people but talking with people. There is a practical point: if we are having a debate, we do not want to be like the Council of Europe with its dead debates where people read out speeches; we want to have people here and intervening on each other.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am naturally grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right that we do need to be here. I share his concern that we think we should do things differently from other people. That is why I have consistently tried to set out a case where the House behaves in the way that other key workers are.
Yes, I know right hon. and hon. Members have to travel from their constituencies to get here, but other key workers have to take journeys, too—we are not alone in that. We are not alone in needing to go to our workplace because it does not operate properly without us. We should, in fact, be proud of the fact that we are key workers and, alongside other key workers, doing our duty to make democracy function.
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about there being two groups of people, which we should bear in mind. As I said, we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with our constituents, recognising that they have to face these difficulties as well. We are not, in this sense, unique. As we can help those who are extremely clinically vulnerable, it is right that we should do so. However, that will be a limited change, because the resources and the ability to have proper debate are limiting factors in what can or should be done.

Christine Jardine: Many of us in this place would not ask the Leader of the House for different circumstances from those we represent. We are actually asking for the same consideration. Many of us come from constituencies quite some distance from London, from areas where there is no lockdown at the moment, and the public have been asked not to travel to areas where there is a lockdown. Many of us doing that—despite being asked not to do so—also have underlying health conditions and therefore every day have to decide what comes first: the risk to our health or representing our constituents. Most of us choose representing our constituents. I do not think that is a decision we should be asked to make, because we would not ask any of our constituents to put their health at risk. I ask him to take that into account.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she makes and for her attendance at the House. I recognise that the issues she raises are problems for right hon. and hon. Members. Where I disagree with her is in the view that our constituents are not also having to do that. Our constituents who are key workers do have to travel and go to different places, and that is why there are not travel restrictions on key workers. That is of fundamental importance. That is why it is right that she is here and why it is important that other Members are here. As I said earlier, democracy is not a nice-to-have bauble; it is essential to the governance of the country.

Peter Grant: I am astonished that the Leader of the House continues to insist that anyone who is a designated key worker is having to work normally. That is simply not the case. Key worker status has nothing to do with whether someone has to attend work. It was invented at the start of the pandemic to provide prioritisation for key workers who needed, for example, childcare arrangements so that someone could look after their children while they went to work. The Office for National Statistics estimated last year that about one third of the workforce would be categorised as key workers.
If the Leader of the House is suggesting that one third of the workforce should be going about their normal day-to-day work as if nothing had happened, that is surely a recipe for disaster. He does not understand what “key worker” means; he does not understand the fact that Select Committees have already seen their meeting schedules torn to pieces by the restrictions on broadcast capacity within the House; he does not even understand the statement from his own Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister said that anyone over 60 should minimise contact with others. It would take out about 140 Members of the House of Commons, including me, if we followed the Prime Minister’s advice.
May I suggest to the Leader of the House that he goes and finds out the facts of what he is talking about and then come to the House with a proposal that allows anybody who has a legitimate reason for not being able to travel to the House to play a full part in the proceedings by video call—by remote means—in exactly the same way as the national Parliaments in Scotland and elsewhere are able to work perfectly satisfactorily?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If anyone looks around the Chamber, they will see that we are not working normally. It is not a question of working normally: we see the markings  on the floor, the tape, the stickers, the “no entry” signs where prayer cards normally go. The House is not working normally; Perspex screens have been put up. This has been done to make it a covid-secure workplace. I do not think there is any question that all key workers are working normally, but it is important that they are at work, and most need to be at work, as we do. That is the point that I would make, but is it normal here? No, and the issues the hon. Gentleman raises about Select Committees are absolutely right. Of course it has been difficult to make Select Committees run in the same way as they did before the pandemic. The issues have applied in Westminster Hall, too, where the numbers who can attend are limited, and Members are not able to intervene in the way they normally would. That is true; we are not working normally, but we are continuing to work.

Caroline Nokes: Equality is not a “nice to have”; it is essential. Pregnancy and maternity, disability and age are all protected characteristics by law. Employers in the NHS and in education have made reasonable adjustments so that pregnant workers can work in those environments, and some have been enabled to work from home. Why will the Leader of the House not do the same for the key workers in Parliament?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I hope Hansard got a bit more of that than I did, but I think I got the fundamental point. We have made the right provisions to ensure that people can come to the House and can participate in our debates, and this is a further step on this road. Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: I have always been a bit suspicious about the concept of normality; it has always seemed to me to be a moving feast. One of the great strengths of British history and the constitution is that tradition always adapts to reality. The Leader of the House will remember the 15th century. In 1439, when pestilence was abroad, the House of Commons and the House of Lords jointly petitioned the King to say, “Could we dispense with the business of kissing the King as a sign of our liege duty?”; and the King agreed. Is not the truth of the matter that in every generation, when there are classic moments like this one of national crisis, we have to abandon our hidebound traditions? We have to adapt to the moment, and surely to God it must be invidious to be asking individual people to declare whether they are clinically extremely vulnerable. As it happens, I have had six letters, I think, now to say that I am; my doctor says that I am not. I am quite happy to talk about it, but I do not think individual Members should have to declare that.
Why can we not just trust Members, and say that every single Member is treated equally in this House and has an equal right to debate until the end of this parliamentary Session, and then we can revise what we want to do in the future? Why on earth is it going to be right that if the Government table a motion next week—perhaps at the end of this week—the Government Chief Whip will have more than 200 votes in his pocket to be able to dispose of? Would it not make much more sense for us, at least on this issue, to have voting online so that everybody can cast their own vote?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman wants to change things, and then when they are changed he does not like them. That makes him very difficult to satisfy.

Robert Halfon: I strongly welcome the move that my right hon. Friend has made today. I think it will make a significant difference. I do agree with him that Parliament should definitely be open and that those MPs who can attend should do so, because it sets an example to the nation. I know him to be a kind and thoughtful man, so when he considers these issues in future, may I ask him to ensure that the Government do not give the impression, however unwittingly, that sometimes they care just about the survival of the fittest and that we are not just supporting Darwinian Übermenschen MPs in Parliament?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He puts things so well. He is a most effective campaigner in the very many fields in which he campaigns, and I absolutely share his view. The Government are not trying to be macho about this; they are just trying to ensure that the Government themselves are held to account properly, but that the legislative programme is also proceeded with. I agree with him entirely that Parliament needs to be present, and I also agree with him that we are showing an example to the nation as a whole. May I add that he often personally shows a fine example to the nation?

Janet Daby: I fundamentally disagree with the Leader of the House: the remote voting system in the House of Lords has been working, and is working, effectively. However, does he recognise how insulting he was when he implied that shielding Members were shirking their duty by not being able to come to Parliament, and will he apologise?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What I have said is that those who are clinically extremely vulnerable will be able to have remote participation, I hope, subject to a motion before this House. There is no question of accusing those people of shirking; that would be quite wrong and I have never done so.

Mark Harper: I welcome what the Leader of the House has brought forward, but I have listened carefully to what has been said and I really do not understand why we cannot extend participation in debates. It might have to be limited; I accept that interventions might be difficult. My concern is this: I do not think he said whether those who have family members who are clinically extremely vulnerable would be covered by this provision, and that is essential. I have a real problem, but, frankly, I am not convinced that making all of this public is a very good idea. I do not think that compelling people to disclose quite private medical information widely is something that we should be in the business of doing. I would prefer it if it were left to Members. Those who are able to participate in interrogative proceedings virtually ought to be able to do so in debates, and I urge him to reflect on that further before he brings the motions before the House.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The advice of the Government broadly, not specifically to this House, is that it is extremely clinically vulnerable people who should not be going into work, not members of families where a member of  that family is extremely clinically vulnerable. It is important that we follow the same advice that we are giving to our constituents. I said earlier that last week I had to write to a constituent saying exactly that, and that I do not feel it is right for this House to take a different approach from the one that we are expecting our constituents to take.
As regards people revealing their medical details, nobody will be expected to go into any detail as to what their illness is. They will merely need to be extremely clinically vulnerable, and it will be a choice for those people. I think the difficulty with allowing anybody who can participate remotely to participate in all aspects remotely is that we would then not have debates; we would have a series of monologues and we would have the risk of the system going down. We have already had a couple of people on calls this afternoon whose words were muffled or distorted. The technology is not perfect. The efforts of the broadcasting team are absolutely admirable, but the technology does not work perfectly and people being here physically is important for proper democratic accountability.

Barbara Keeley: After my recent treatment for breast cancer, my oncologist advised me to reduce my contacts as much as I can during the pandemic. That is the reason I have not been travelling to the House. That does not make me clinically extremely vulnerable, so I would fall outside the changes suggested by the Leader of the House unless they are widened. I am glad we are discussing the extension of remote participation, but the plan by the Leader of the House to restrict it to Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable is just wrong. With the right support, Members can do their job remotely, but we have been denied that. I call on the Leader of the House to do the right thing and confirm that all MPs who are not able to travel to Westminster safely for a health reason or a reason related to the pandemic can participate remotely

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I begin by wishing the hon. Lady well in her recovery.
I am sure the whole House would like me to do that.

Valerie Vaz: indicated assent.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I doubt the hon. Lady can see, but the shadow Leader of the House is nodding. I know everyone here wishes her well.
As I said earlier, this is a balance between ensuring that parliamentary business is carried out properly and allowing those who are extremely clinically vulnerable to be able to participate. That will not be perfect in terms of debate—they will not be able to take interventions, nor will they be able to intervene. It is hard to see how that could function effectively. The greater the numbers who were involved, the harder it would be to make the system work effectively. I think we have the balance about right, although I absolutely understand that it will be difficult for some right hon. and hon. Members.

Rosie Winterton: I call Bob Stewart.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was going to make has been repeatedly made by hon. and right hon. Members, so I will withdraw my question.

Rosie Winterton: I now call Sarah Jones.

Sarah Jones: May I recommend that the Leader of the House read the gov.uk guidance? The guidance is different this time from last time: it is just really clear that people need to stay at home and only go to work if they cannot work from home. We can work from home, and to show an example to the rest of the country, we should do that. I have been self-isolating for the last nine days, because the covid app told me to. I really wanted to raise a campaign that I and my constituents were doing to try and honour the 34 people in Croydon who have lost their lives in conflict since the second world war. I had wanted to raise that in the Armistice Day debate and I was not able to do so. Given that the technology is available and that thousands of key workers, including my husband, are working perfectly well from home, why did the Leader of the House think it was right to exclude me from that debate last week?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady and I simply disagree on whether the House can operate effectively remotely. We have the experience to go on of May and June when it did not work effectively. The legislative programme was bunged up and we lost all the private Members’ days—all the Fridays were cancelled—Westminster Hall was closed, and we had limited availability for Opposition days and no availability for Backbench business.
The House has to carry on a wide range of activities, not just in the Chamber but in Committee Rooms. No Public Bill Committees or statutory instrument Committees took place. We need to get legislation through, both because of the deadline of 31 December, which is an important one, and because we have to legislate on covid. That is of course in addition to the democratic obligation to deliver on the manifesto commitments that were made in the election last year. With all these things, I think it is unquestionable that we need to be here physically to do it properly.

Flick Drummond: If we are to have some Members attending virtually, which I agree with, can we lengthen the debates on important issues? For instance, last week’s Remembrance Day debate was only three hours, but 59 people had put in to speak and only 28 Back Benchers caught the Speaker’s eye. Personally, I have put in for four debates and not been called in each one, even though I have spoken only seven times this year. Could we extend the debates so that everybody can contribute, as well as the people having to self-isolate at home?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: One issue with which I am not the first Leader of the House to wrestle is that Members want a clear time for the ending of business but also the ability to speak in debates. Trying to balance the two is extraordinarily difficult. I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying and am very sympathetic to it. I must confess that I was pleasantly surprised by how many people put in for the Armistice Day debate; when we discussed it as a possible subject for debate, we were not at all certain of how many people would want to speak in it. When a debate is brought forward and attracts great interest, there is some feeling that we are getting the order of business right. We will know for next year that there is a considerable desire to speak in that debate.
My hon. Friend’s general point is a very valid one: how we structure business to allow people to make the contributions that they want to make is fundamental. I am afraid that, perhaps rather feebly, I suggest that she contacts the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), because it is a subject that ought to be of interest to that Committee.

Clive Efford: The Leader of the House keeps quoting the Government guidance, so while he has been answering questions I have looked it up. Last updated on 14 November, the guidance says, under the heading “Going to work”:
“To help contain the virus, everyone who can work effectively from home should do so.”
The only person in this Chamber who is standing in the way of Members of Parliament effectively doing their jobs from home is the Leader of the House. He has got himself into a ridiculous position because he has dug himself in by insisting that people attend this Chamber, but that is a ridiculous approach during this crisis and he should change his mind.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman might have been well off listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has left his place but said that he had already heard the question asked several times so offered to withdraw it. I am more than happy to answer the same question once again, which is to say that we do need to come here to do our job properly and that is the fundamental point. That is what the Government guidelines exist for: if people cannot work from home effectively, they need to come into work. We are in that category. I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you would like me to set out the reasons why, going back through April, May and June—the absence of Westminster Hall, the loss of Fridays for private Members’ Bills, the limitations on the work that can be done and the slowness of legislation getting through—but I will happily repeat myself if that is your command.

Robin Millar: May I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff for helping to provide a covid-secure workplace in the House? We must not lose sight of that among this debate about all the different interests. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is doing and this announcement, and in particular the compassion that is evident in what he has said and the flexibility he has shown in trying to address some  of the concerns expressed. It occurs to me that there are competing interests here. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could confirm that, given that we cannot find a perfect model of what has gone before and what we have had before, it is his difficult—even unenviable—task to find a point of balance at that very difficult place that takes into consideration the constraints of time, technology and the many Members who want to make their points in debate?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend puts it absolutely perfectly: this is all a question of balance and trying to ensure that Members can participate—particularly those with difficult circumstances, whom everybody wants to  facilitate if possible—while also recognising that there is a Government agenda to be worked through and the job of holding the Government to account. My right hon. Friend—my hon. Friend; I dare not promote him quite so quickly—has managed to say in one sentence what I think I have been saying over the past hour and a half. Perhaps he should be Leader of the House.

Rachael Maskell: This may be deemed a covid-secure environment, but every day I am here I witness breaches of the “hands, face, space” criteria set out by Her Majesty’s Government, so someone who is clinically vulnerable is at risk and therefore this is not secure. Secondly, may I say that it is completely reprehensible that the Leader of the House discussed the clinical diagnosis of a Member of this House from the Dispatch Box and that calling on Members to declare that they are clinically extremely vulnerable is also reprehensible? I have two suggestions for him. The first, on equality, is that he ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to carry out an investigation into the discrimination that is occurring as a result of his practices. Secondly, I ask for a short independent commission to see what is possible with regard to making the whole of Parliament virtual for those who require it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am concerned to hear the hon. Lady say that this is not a covid-secure workplace. If we look around, we see the precautions that have been taken: the advice given to people to wear masks, which most people are doing as they walk about the Palace of Westminster; the gaps that have been placed; the covid-security of this Chamber; the lack of spaces within this Chamber, which is problematic for many Members, who regret the fact that they are not able to attend debates and that we have only about 50 people in the Chamber, rather than the 400 or whatever the precise number is that we can normally contain; the changes that have been made to the Tea Room, which are not enormously popular with all Members, to ensure that it, too, is a covid-secure workspace; and the encouragement of people, which has been continual since the beginning of this pandemic, to wash their hands. I must confess that I would be very surprised if right hon. and hon. Members are not washing their hands regularly, and no doubt she will encourage them when she sees them failing to do so. I am surprised by what she says and think that the work done by the House of Commons authorities to ensure that this is a covid-secure workplace has been most impressive. As regards the equalities issue, we are doing exactly what she would want to see done in ensuring that those people who have illnesses are able to participate in our proceedings.

James Sunderland: I welcome this urgent question and the prospect of the clinically extremely vulnerable being able to participate remotely in this place, particularly as a temporary and expedient measure. As a wider point, may I ask the Leader of the House for assurance that the House authorities are working up a plan for how this Chamber returns to normal and when?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That will be a happy day, a day of jubilee and song, and I hope we do not have to wait until the platinum jubilee before it happens. But it will happen partly automatically, because the motions will  one day expire. Of course I am enormously keen to get back to normal, when it is reasonable to do so, and in that we will be following the rest of the country. The fact that we are able to do as much as we can do should make us proud of our democracy. We have shown that democracy is essential and it is being carried out, and it is working in the interests of the nation. People are here and they are arguing over the contentious issues, and this is so fundamental, but it is slightly sotto voce compared with the full-blooded call we have for the interests of our constituents when the Chamber is packed, the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box and that roar goes up, when the real pressure is on, to ensure that, on behalf of the British people, we hold Her Majesty’s Government to account.

Philippa Whitford: On 2 November, the Leader of the House suggested that MPs such as myself, who are unable to attend the House, are shirking their duty, but it is he who has excluded me from important legislative debates. I welcome the fact that he will now reconsider, but he keeps referring to the “extremely clinically vulnerable” and yet says that this will not include MPs in the shielding category. So may I ask him: exactly who will decide which MPs are accorded the right to speak and will he clarify what medical qualifications they will hold?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is not for me to determine the medical advice that is received by Members of Parliament, but if they are told by their doctors that they are extremely clinically vulnerable, they will be extremely clinically vulnerable; I am sure we can trust doctors to know which of their patients are extremely clinically vulnerable or not.

Marco Longhi: I know the Leader of the House will do everything he can to make virtual access to Parliament as widespread as possible for those needing to work remotely, but does he agree that maintaining a personal presence in Parliament is key in delivering Parliament’s work and key in setting an example to all those we are asking to carry on working?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in great agreement with my hon. Friend. It is important that we keep working here, and I would encourage those who can to come in. Indeed, I would go further and say that they have a duty to come.

Chris Elmore: I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that it is not appropriate, or indeed proper, for him to announce these types of changes on Twitter, so will he first apologise for that, given that, as great champion of this House, he should have made the statement here and not announced it on Twitter on Saturday? I also know that he will think that it is not appropriate to suggest in a tweet that this is a capacity issue within the House service. That simply is not correct. These things have been in place with increased capacity since May of this year, and he knows that.
On Bill Committees, I cannot believe that we are back to the same debate of April and May. The Leader of the House knows, on the record, that it is not correct to say that there was a blockage of Bill Committees. Labour Members had been put forward and there had been trials for hybrid proceedings. The official Opposition  had put forward Members for either hybrid or physical Bill Committees. The Leader of the House knows that.
This is not about interventions in this House; it is about the right of Members to take part in a debate. The Leader of the House knows that it was a simple change of Standing Orders to allow that those who take part in a Back-Bench or Opposition day debate in a hybrid system would accept not having interventions while Members in the Chamber could. He knows he is not correct in what he is saying. This is deeply unfair to those Members. It is about time he acknowledged his fundamental duty as Leader of the House to represent all Members of this House to the Government.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman stands up and says that what I am saying is something that he does not believe. At some point he made a little comment about the enormous enthusiasm with which the official Opposition are trying to help Her Majesty’s Government to get their business through. I say to him: pot and kettle.

Aaron Bell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his question. I put on record my sympathy with his circumstances and indeed the case he is making. However, does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree—I feel this quite keenly as a new Member—that Parliament should be an assembly, and not just for the quality of scrutiny and deliberation but because of the learning from each other that takes place here? Does he therefore agree that those who can assemble in a covid-secure way should do so?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We ought to be assembling because we are not, as Edmund Burke put it, ambassadors representing countries —individual areas that are not as one—but representatives sent to a single Parliament where we come together to look at the overall interests of the country at large. That needs people to come together and talk to each other, not just lecture each other remotely, which is clearly not a satisfactory way to run a Parliament. He is right: we need to come together. That is why we do come together and why we must come together.

Jonathan Edwards: The Government, I presume, will soon be outlining a ratification process for any deal that they sign with the EU. In all probability, these will be the most important deliberations we will have here in this Parliament. Given that, is it not his responsibility as Leader of the House to ensure that all Members of this House can take part in debates and votes no matter what their circumstances?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically reasonable and helpful question. Obviously, if there were to be an agreement with the European Union and votes and debates on it, that would be a matter of interest to the whole House. I feel that what is being proposed and will come forward in a motion will allow that to happen. All Members are currently able to have a proxy vote, and therefore their vote will be recorded. It is very important to note that, although the proxy vote may be in the hands of Whips, individual Members are absolutely entitled either to give it to somebody else or to ask the Whip to vote in a different way from the way the Whip wants them to vote. It is not  a vote that is handed over for good, and that is fundamental. The individual right of a Member to direct his or her vote is maintained, and these proposals will allow those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate in debates remotely. I hope that there will be an outbreak of union between the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru, though we may disagree about the status of our nation.

Nigel Mills: Does the Leader of the House accept that he has probably not commanded the support of the entire House for the Government’s approach? Will he therefore allow the House to amend any motion he tables, so that we can take the full view of the House on how its proceedings should be governed during this crisis?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I mistakenly looked at the screen and thought it had gone blank, but may I say how nice it is to see my hon. Friend here physically? He and I were great troopers together on the Back Benches for many years, and I am glad to see that he continues to hold the Government to account. The Government will bring forward a motion. I will announce the schedule of business on Thursday, although if I keep going at this rate, I may still be speaking on Thursday morning.

Drew Hendry: The Leader of the House said that, as key workers, every Member is in the same position. During this pandemic, I have had to drive over 10 hours on several occasions to attend Westminster, and I am not the furthest away. Not everybody can do that. The lockdown in England has meant that transport options have practically stopped in many constituencies for those who are far from the easy travelling distance to Westminster that he enjoys. For example, only one flight leaves Inverness today, and that is to Stornoway. How does that sit with every Member being in the same position?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The distance between Inverness and Westminster has not changed during the course of the pandemic, as far as I am aware; I am unaware of a great movement of the tectonic plates. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his commitment to Parliament in wanting to come here and the importance of a Union Parliament welcoming MPs from across the country, who come  together to express their views, with the enormous contribution made by SNP Members who dutifully come to Westminster to inform and contribute to our debates and hold the Government to account. They are dutiful public servants—key workers—doing their bit for the United Kingdom, and I thank the hon. Gentleman warmly for his service to the UK.

Laura Farris: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement about the extended rights of participation for the clinically extremely vulnerable. The fact remains that there is a category of Member of Parliament who is effectively excluded from participating but who is not clinically extremely vulnerable, and that is pregnant women. I dovetail this question with the one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). The Health Secretary has confirmed that pregnancy does not leave someone clinically extremely vulnerable. The reason for their exclusion is compliance with the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. If my right hon. Friend was satisfied that there were MPs who were excluded and could not participate but did not meet the clinically extremely vulnerable criteria, would he consider extending the right to participate in debates to that category?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to explain why the view is that this should cover the clinically extremely vulnerable, which is very straightforward. That is the group that is currently advised by the Government not to go to work. If the Government were to advise other specific groups not to go to work, of course it would be right to consider whether they ought to be added to the list.
I must add one caveat, and that is on the overall numbers. To ensure that we still have proper debate and a functioning Parliament, the numbers need to be limited. That is part of the balance that I, as Leader of the House, and others are seeking to achieve, to ensure that we can maintain our business—both the legislative agenda and being held to account—but also facilitate people in particular conditions. I am not unsympathetic to anybody in a difficult situation, but we need to follow what the Government are suggesting to see which categories may be included. So far, the category is the clinically extremely vulnerable, but I am not as much of a stick-in-the-mud as some people might think.

Points of Order

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. On Tuesday 21 July, during an evidence session of the Science and Technology Committee, I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the role of Topham Guerin Ltd, which was given a £3 million contract by the Government to work on their comms strategy.
I asked the Secretary of State whether he could outline what part of the Government’s strategy Topham Guerin was responsible for. He replied “No.” I then probed further, asking whether he said that because he did not know. He said:
“It was not a Department of Health responsibility.”
The Byline Times and the Good Law Project have been investigating contracts made by the Government, and I established via official records of ministerial meetings that on 26 May, almost two months prior to my question, a telephone call had taken place between a Health Minister and Topham Guerin Ltd to discuss “test and trace marketing”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Ministers must be honest and transparent, especially when giving evidence to a House of Commons Committee. By omitting that vital information, I fear that the Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled me and the Committee. Can you advise on how I could compel the Secretary of State to be clear and confirm the correct information?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it; I presume that she also gave notice to the Secretary of State.

Dawn Butler: indicated assent.

Rosie Winterton: Right. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, if any incomplete or unintentionally inaccurate information were given by a Minister to a Select Committee, I would expect the Committee to be informed or to pursue the matter. The hon. Lady has placed her concerns on the record. I am sure that the Treasury Bench and the Leader of the House have heard what she has had to say and will feed it back, in case any corrections need to be made.

Ruth Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking your advice on how I can best correct the record following my question to the Prime Minister on Wednesday 4 November.
During my question, I said that the covid contact tracing system cost £32 a head in Wales and £1,700 in England. The figure in England is actually £170, so I am concerned that I may have inadvertently misled Parliament. The basic premise of my question is unaltered, as the contact tracing system is more cost effective and efficient in Wales, which uses local government and health board staff rather than anonymous callers from a remote private company. That said, I ask your advice on how I can best set the record straight.

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter. She has ingeniously used her point of order to set the record straight, and I am sure that the House is very grateful to her for doing that so promptly.
The House will now suspend for three minutes to allow for the safe exit and entry of right hon. and hon. Members.
5.23 pm
Sitting suspended.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1 - Pensions Guidance

“The Secretary of State must write to members or survivors of pension schemes five years prior to the age of becoming eligible to access their benefits, to state a scheduled date and time for a pensions guidance appointment, or the option to reschedule or defer this appointment; and write annually until a pensions guidance appointment has been taken, or the member’s desire to opt out has been confirmed.”—(Stephen Timms.)
This new clause would ensure members or survivors of pension schemes receive an impartial pensions guidance appointment prior to the point when they become eligible to access their pension benefits, with an appointment booked each year until such time that the member has received impartial guidance.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Pensions Advisory Commission—
“(1) The Pensions Regulator shall establish a committee to be known as the Pensions Advisory Commission.
(2) The Commission shall consist of—
(a) members of the Regulator as provided under section 2(1) of the Pensions Act 2004, and
(b) five other persons appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
(3) A person appointed under subsection (2)(b) shall exercise only functions in pursuance of the duties in subsections (5) and (6).
(4) The Commission shall be chaired by a person appointed under subsection (2)(b).
(5) It shall be the duty of the Pensions Advisory Commission to submit to the Secretary of State each calendar year, beginning with the year 2022, a report setting out the Commission’s views on—
(a) the impact of provisions in Parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Act on—
(i) persons in different parts and regions of the United Kingdom,
(ii) equal treatment of men and women in access to pension provision, and
(iii) persons with a protected characteristic under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010; and
(b) the effectiveness of the powers in Parts 1 to 3 of this Act in enabling the Pensions Regulator to achieve its objectives under section 5 of the Pensions Act 2004.
(6) It shall also be the duty of the Commission to report to the Secretary of State by 31 October 2021 its views on when commercial operators should be able to enter the market for provision of a pensions dashboard service.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of every report received from the Commission under this section.”
New clause 3—Pension accounts—
“(1) A jobholder to whom section 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 applies may by notice require an employer to arrange for the jobholder to receive into a pension account any contribution which would otherwise be made by the employer into an automatic enrolment scheme.
(2) A contribution by a jobholder or by their employer into the jobholder’s pension account shall be invested in a pension scheme offered by an approved pension provider.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
(a) about the form and content of a notice given under subsection (1), or
(b) about the arrangements that the employer is required to make.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations to set criteria by which a pension provider may be approved for the purposes of subsection (2).
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
New clause 4—Employer debt: trustees’ discretion—
“(1) The following changes are made to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678).
(2) In regulation 2, in the definition of “scheme apportionment arrangement”—
(a) in sub-paragraph (f)(ii), after “apply”, insert “but not if the circumstances in paragraph (h) apply”;
(b) at end insert—
“(h) the consent of the remaining employer or employers shall not be required under (f)(ii) above where all of the following conditions apply—
(i) the departing employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior to the coming into force of this provision; and
(ii) the departing employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due; and
(iii) the employer in question was operating as an unincorporated business during his participation in the scheme; and
(iv) the trustees or managers consider that, in the context of the scheme overall, taking into account factors such as the scheme’s assets, liabilities and the trustees’ or managers’ most recent assessment of the overall employer covenant, there would be no material benefit to the scheme and its members in seeking recovery of the employer’s liability share from the departing employer.”
(3) In regulation 9, after paragraph (14B), insert the following new paragraph—
“(14C) Condition L is that a debt was treated as becoming due from him under section 75 of the 1995 Act but is excluded under this Condition because—
(a) the employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior to this Condition coming into force; and
(b) the employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due; and
(c) the employer in question was operating as an unincorporated business during his participation in the scheme; and
(d) at or before the applicable time, the trustees or managers have made a determination not to pursue the debt on the grounds that, in the context of the scheme overall, taking into account factors such as the scheme’s assets, liabilities and the trustees’ or managers’ most recent assessment of the overall employer covenant, seeking recovery represented a disproportionate cost to the scheme and would be of no material benefit to the scheme overall.””
This new clause would enable pension scheme trustees to exercise discretion not to pursue employer debt following an employer’s exit from a pension scheme where such debt is below a de minimis threshold. This aims to support unincorporated employers who are now retired for business and for whom the current regulation allows no easements.
New clause 5—Employer debt: deferred debt arrangement—
“(1) The following changes are made to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678).
(2) In regulation 6F—
(a) in paragraph (1), leave out “A” and insert “Subject to the provisions of paragraph (8) below, a”;
(b) at end insert—
“(8) In relation to a frozen scheme, the trustees or managers of the scheme may agree to a deferred debt arrangement where the employment-cessation event occurred at a time prior to the scheme becoming a frozen scheme, providing the conditions of paragraph (3) are met at the time the deferred debt arrangement is entered into.””
This new clause would permit employers in a pension scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a deferred debt arrangement, providing they meet the other statutory tests. This aims to support employers who are still trading but were not able to use the existing deferred debt easement.
New clause 6—Regulation of pension superfunds—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a statement on proposals for primary legislation in relation to a duty on the Pensions Regulator to regulate pension superfunds.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a pension superfund is a defined benefit pension scheme that allows for the severance of an employer’s liability towards a defined benefit scheme and one of the following conditions applies—
(a) the scheme employer is replaced by a special purpose vehicle (SPV) employer, or
(b) the liability of the employer to fund the scheme’s liabilities is replaced by an employer backed with a capital injection to a capital buffer.
(3) The statement under subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament before the end of a period of six months from the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish within six months of Royal Assent proposals for primary legislation to place a duty on the Pensions Regulator to regulate pension superfunds.
Amendment 15, in clause 118,page104,line19, at end insert—
“(3) Requirements prescribed under subsection (2) must include a requirement that a pensions dashboard service may not include a facility for engaging in financial transaction activities.”
This amendment ensures that a pensions dashboard does not include a provision for financial transaction activities.
Amendment 9,page105,line20, at end insert—
“(6A) A requirement under subsection (6)(d) may require the provider of a pensions dashboard service to ensure that the needs of people in vulnerable circumstances, including but not exclusively—
(a) persons who suffer long-term sickness or disability,
(b) carers,
(c) persons on low incomes, and
(d) recipients of benefits,
are met and that resources are allocated in such a way as to allow specially trained advisers and guidance to be made available to them.”
This amendment would require that specially trained advisers and guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances and would provide an indicative list of what vulnerable circumstances should include.
Amendment 10,page105,line20, at end insert—
“(6A) A requirement under subsection (6)(d) may require the provider of a pensions dashboard service to communicate to an individual using the dashboard the difference between—
(a) provision of information,
(b) provision of guidance, and
(c) provision of advice.”
This amendment would require the provider of a pensions dashboard service to ensure that users are made aware of the differences between “information”, “guidance” and “advice”.
Amendment 11, in clause 119, page108,line18, after “scheme,” insert—
“(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration of the scheme”.
This amendment would add information about the total cost of charges incurred for the administration and management of occupational pension schemes to the list of information displayed on the dashboard.
Amendment 13, in clause 121,page112,line42, after “scheme,” insert—
“(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration of the scheme”.
This amendment would add information about the total cost of charges incurred for the administration and management of personal and stakeholder pension schemes to the list of information displayed on the dashboard.
Amendment 8, in clause 122, page116,line37, at end insert—
“(2A) Before any other pension dashboard services can qualify under section 238A of the Pensions Act 2004 (qualifying pensions dashboard service)—
(a) the pensions dashboard service under subsection (1) must have been established for at least one year, and
(b) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the operation and effectiveness of the pensions dashboard service under subsection (1) in its first year.”
Amendment 14,page116,line37, at end insert—
“(3) Before any other pension dashboard services can qualify under section238A of the Pensions Act 2004 (qualifying pensions dashboard service) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the operation and effectiveness of the pensions dashboard service, including the adequacy of consumer protections.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the operation and effectiveness of the public dashboard service (including consumer protections) before allowing commercial dashboards to operate.
Amendment 7, in clause 123, page117,line34, at end insert—
“(2) In exercising any powers to make regulations, or otherwise to prescribe any matter or principle, under Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004 (scheme funding) as amended by Schedule 10, the objectives of the Secretary of State must include ensuring that schemes that are expected to remain open to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant period of time, can adopt funding and investment strategies which are suited to the characteristics of such schemes.”
Amendment 1,page117,line34, at end insert—
“(2) In exercising any powers to make regulations, or otherwise to prescribe any matter or principle, under Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004 (scheme funding) as amended by Schedule 10, the Secretary of State must ensure that—
(a) schemes that are expected to remain open to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant period of time, are treated differently from schemes that are not;
(b) scheme liquidity is balanced with scheme maturity;
(c) there is a correlation between appropriate investment risk and scheme maturity;
(d) affordability of contributions to employers is maintained;
(e) affordability of contributions to members is maintained;
(f) the closure of schemes that are expected to remain open to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant period of time, is not accelerated; and
(g) trustees retain sufficient discretion to be able to comply with their duty to act in the best interests of their beneficiaries.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that open and active schemes which are receiving regular, significant cash contributions and closed schemes are treated differently, in accordance with their differing liquidity profile.
Amendment 6,page117,line34, at end insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State must, on or before 30 June 2021, lay before Parliament a comprehensive impact assessment of the effect on the charitable sector of changes to defined benefit schemes made under Schedule 10.”
This amendment would require the Government to produce an economic impact assessment of the changes to defined benefit schemes upon the charitable sector.
Amendment 16, in clause 124, page118,line45, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
“(8) In this section and in sections 41AA, 41B and 41C—
(a) “the Paris Agreement goal” means the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 4.1 of the agreement done at Paris on 12 December 2015; and
(b) “other climate change goal” means any climate change goal approved by the Secretary of State, but does not apply to a climate change goal which fails to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement goal.
41AA Alignment with the Paris Agreement goal
(1) Trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes of a prescribed description must develop, set and implement, and from time to time review and if necessary revise, a strategy for ensuring that their investment policy, objectives and practices (including stewardship activities) are aligned with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal.
(2) Such a strategy is to be known as a “Paris-alignment strategy”.
(3) The objective of a Paris-alignment strategy must be to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, consistent with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal.
(4) Provision may be made by regulations—
(a) requiring the trustees or managers of a scheme, in determining or revising a Paris-alignment strategy, to take into account prescribed matters and follow prescribed principles—
(i) as to the level of detail required in a Paris-alignment strategy; and
(ii) as to the period within which a Paris-alignment strategy must be developed, set and effected;
(b) requiring annual reporting on the implementation of the Paris-alignment strategy and progress against the objective set out in subsection (3); and
(c) requiring a Paris-alignment strategy to be reviewed, and if necessary revised, at such intervals and on such occasions as may be prescribed.”
This amendment enables regulations that would mandate occupational pension schemes to develop a strategy for ensuring that their investments and stewardship activities are aligning with the Paris agreement goals, and include an objective of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.
Amendment 17,page119,line7, after “scheme” insert
“and alignment with achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal”.
This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16.
Amendment 18,page119,line8, leave out “section 41A” and insert “sections 41A and 41AA”.
This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16.
Amendment 19, page 119, line 19, after “41A”, insert “, 41AA”.
This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16.
Amendment 20, page 119, line 21, after “41A”, insert “, 41AA”.
This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16.
Amendment 21,page119,line22, at end insert—
“(za) provide for the Authority to undertake a review of, and report publicly on, the extent to which the activities under sections 41A and 41AA are achieving effective governance of climate change risk and alignment of pension schemes with the Paris Agreement goal;”.
This amendment enables the regulator to publicly assess the progress and development of schemes’ strategies to achieve alignment with Paris agreement goals.
Amendment 22,page119,line25, after “41A”, insert “, 41AA”.
This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16.
Amendment 23,page119,line30, after “41A”, insert “, 41AA”.
This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16.
Amendment 24,page119,line37, after “41A”, insert “, 41AA”.
This amendment is consequent on Amendment 16.
Amendment 2, in clause 125,page120,line32, at end insert—
“(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees or managers regarding the intended transfer or the receiving scheme.”
This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (6ZA) of section 95 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to prescribe conditions about the results of due diligence undertaken in relation to a transfer request such as to determine that the statutory right to a transfer is not established if specific “red flags” are identified in relation to the transfer or intended receiving pension scheme. Amendments 3, 4 and 5 are related.
Amendment 3,page121,line27, at end insert—
“(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees or managers regarding the intended transfer or the receiving scheme.”
This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (5A) of section 101F of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to prescribe conditions about the results of due diligence undertaken in relation to a transfer request such as to determine that the statutory right to a transfer is not established if specific “red flags” are identified in relation to the transfer or intended receiving pension scheme. Amendments 2, 4 and 5 are related.
Amendment 12, in schedule 9,page178,line14, after “scheme,” insert—
(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration of the scheme”.
This amendment would add information about the total cost of charges incurred for the administration and management of occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland to the list of information displayed on the dashboard.
Amendment 4, in schedule 11,page192,line20, at end insert—
“(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees or managers regarding the intended transfer or the receiving scheme.”
This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (6ZA) of section 91 of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 to prescribe conditions about the results of due diligence undertaken in relation to a transfer request such as to determine that the statutory right to a transfer is not established if specific “red flags” are identified in relation to the transfer or intended receiving pension scheme. Amendments 2, 3 and 5 are related.
Amendment 5,page193,line15, at end insert—
“(e) the results of due diligence undertaken by the trustees or managers regarding the intended transfer or the receiving scheme.”
This amendment enables regulations under inserted subsection (5A) of section 97F of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 to prescribe conditions about the results of due diligence undertaken in relation to a transfer request such as to determine that the statutory right to a transfer is not established if specific “red flags” are identified in relation to the transfer or intended receiving pension scheme. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are related.

Stephen Timms: I rise to speak to new clause 1, together with amendments 2 to 5, and I am grateful to those from my party, the Conservative party and the SNP who have added their names to them.
New clause 1 addresses a serious flaw in the implementation of the pension freedoms that George Osborne announced in his Budget speech in 2014 and that were implemented the following year. This is what George Osborne said in that Budget speech on 19 March 2014:
“Let me be clear: no one will have to buy an annuity. We are going to introduce a new guarantee, enforced by law, that everyone who retires on these defined contribution schemes will be offered free, impartial, face-to-face advice on how to get the most from the choices they will now have.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 793.]
That was a recognition that there could be pitfalls in allowing people to do whatever they wanted with their pension savings—for many people, the largest sum of money they would ever have access to—and that the Government would have to ensure that everybody had access to guidance to help them make the best decisions.
The outcome of George Osborne’s promise is the Pension Wise service operated by Citizens Advice, and it is an excellent service. It is free and it is impartial, as George Osborne promised, and it gets very high satisfaction ratings from those who use it. The problem is that hardly anyone does use it, and new clause 1 is intended to fix that. The latest figures show that about one in 33 of those eligible for Pension Wise actually use it. Last month, the Department for Work and Pensions published a document entitled “Stronger Nudge to Pensions Guidance: Statement of Policy Intent”. That proposed the adoption of new nudges, which, according to the trials, would increase the take-up from one in 33 to one in nine. Well, that is not enough.

Angela Eagle: On that point, I thank my right hon. Friend for the way he is championing consumer advice in this very difficult space. Does he agree with me that we do not want a stronger nudge, but a great big shove into the arms of impartial, free advice?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is precisely what new clause 1 is intended to deliver.
Monthly data used to be published on the usage of Pension Wise. The Government committed to monthly publication in December 2015 in their response to the Work and Pensions Committee’s report “Pension freedom guidance and advice”, but monthly publication stopped in January 2019. Now the data is only published annually. I tabled a question about that, asking for monthly publication to be resumed. The Minister answered no, and said:
“The annual reporting allows for wider analysis and commentary against the figures rather than that previously published month by month.”
However, nothing is lost by publishing every month.

Guy Opperman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for our conversation in the Library beforehand, during which he flagged this point to me. Subject to the powers that I have, given that Pension Wise is an arm’s length body, I am very happy to review the annual publication, to go back to a monthly publication. I would simply make the point that the “Stronger Nudge” is happening as a result of the Work and Pensions Committee’s 2018 recommendation. We are enacting what the Committee asked us to do.

Stephen Timms: I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance, and I look forward to monthly publication resuming.
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who I am delighted to see in her place, at the Treasury Committee a couple of weeks ago the chair of the Financial Conduct Authority spoke about defined-contribution pension savers. He said:
“This issue about people making poor choices when exercising the freedoms…is probably the one that I worry about most of all.”
He went on to say that safeguards need to be
“as strong as they humanly can be”.
The FCA has had a go. As the Minister pointed out in Committee, last November the FCA introduced new rules requiring clearer signposting and promotion of pensions guidance. However, it has not worked. FCA data shows that just 14% of pension pots were accessed after guidance was taken in the six months from October 2019 to March 2020—exactly the same proportion as before the new rules.
It was not just George Osborne who had the ambition that everybody should benefit. The Treasury’s public financial guidance review, published for consultation in March 2016, said:
“Guidance is vital to ensure that individuals are fully aware of their options before they make a decision on what to do with their retirement savings”.
The then Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), said the following month that the Government were introducing
“a requirement that, in effect, ensures that consumers with a high-value annuity receive appropriate financial advice before making the decision to sell their annuity”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 876.]
Today, unfortunately, there is no such requirement. Two years later, in April 2018, her successor, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is the current Economic Secretary, said that, before proceeding with an access or transfer application,
“subject to any exceptions, schemes must ensure that individuals have either received Pension Wise guidance or have opted out.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 831.]
That aspiration has simply not been delivered. Today, the Government are taking steps that their own investigation says would make it true in 11% of cases. New clause 1 would finally deliver on the commitment that the Economic Secretary thought he was delivering on two years ago.
It was not just the Treasury. The noble Baroness Buscombe, who was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions at the same time as the current Minister, said in the other place on 1 May 2018:
“We all want people to make more informed decisions and to make it the norm to use Pension Wise before accessing their pension.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1995.]
Everybody agreed that it should be the norm. Today, the Minister has set his ambition at 11% take-up. How can it be that ambition in his Department has shrunk so far? New clause 1 would resolve it using auto-enrolment to increase the take-up of guidance, just as it has been used so successfully to increase pension saving.

Shailesh Vara: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with huge authority on this subject, having formerly been Pensions Minister. He will, however, appreciate that no matter how many times some people are written to, they simply will not respond, so there will be a proportion of people to whom letters are written who will not take up the option of an appointment and will not indicate that they wish to opt out. What does he propose for those people? I dare say there will be a significant number of them. For them, it will be maintenance of the status quo.

Stephen Timms: The proposal in new clause 1 is that people should be auto-enrolled into an appointment—that everyone should be given an appointment. That would have the effect, I believe and submit, of very significantly increasing the number of people who access Pension Wise. Pension Wise is a very good service. It is funded by an industry levy. Nine out of 10 of those who use it report high or very high satisfaction—that is a pretty impressive level of satisfaction—but it is hidden away from most people. Lots of people have never heard of it.

Shailesh Vara: I note that the right hon. Gentleman says people would be given an appointment, but if the notification were by email, the fact is that people simply ignore a lot of emails. People do not always look at all the letters that are sent to them, or they mean to refer back to a letter, thinking, “Oh, I’ve got an appointment; I’ll get back to that,” but they do not, for whatever reason. There are also people who move home address and so on, who will never be notified if the letter goes to the wrong address and there has been a time gap, and the pensions people have not registered the new address. I accept where the right hon. Gentleman is going and I have huge sympathy with what he seeks to achieve, but there will still be a substantial number of people who will ignore the appointment that will simply be sent to them as a fait accompli.

Stephen Timms: The great strength of the Pension Wise approach is in providing appointments that deliver guidance to a very large number of people. The issue that the hon. Gentleman talks about will need to be managed in the context of a national service that already exists—one that is helping a significant number already and ought to be helping a lot more. The default should be that people get an appointment.
The chair of the Money and Pensions Service told the Work and Pensions Committee in March that 72% of people change their mind about what they are going to do as a result of talking to Pension Wise. He pointed out that
“that tells you that the vast majority of people, left to their own devices, will probably make a poor decision.”
However, the Government’s current policy will leave eight out of nine savers in exactly that position.
Last week, the Minister received a four-page letter from Age UK and other organisations that said:
“The DWP should rightfully be proud of Pension Wise, but usage is still worryingly low, and it is a great concern that the ‘Stronger Nudge’ trials report published by the Money and Pensions Service shows that only a marginal improvement in take-up is likely to result from this approach.”
We have to do much better; they are quite right. The letter goes on to argue that non-advised savers should be opted in automatically, as proposed in new clause 1. It also provides detailed rebuttals to the arguments that the Minister used against this new clause in Committee, which are on the record.
Of course, Age UK is quite right: the Department’s plans are currently inadequate. The letter goes on to point out that the Minister’s suggestion in Committee that the FCA’s introduction next year of its investment pathways might deal with the problem is not going to work either. We cannot sit back while Pension Wise continues to be an excellent service taken up by a very small minority. The Government and regulators need to end their indifference on this. Aspiring to 11% take-up is not enough. We need auto-enrolment into a service that enables better outcomes from pension savings.
One of the reasons for the importance of Pension Wise is that it equips people to avoid being scammed. The Pension Scams Industry Group estimates that 40,000 savers have been scammed out of their savings in the five years since pension freedoms were introduced. Some of them do not yet know about it. A significantly higher number of Pension Wise users than non-users say that they are very or fairly confident about avoiding pension scams, having had an interview with Pension Wise. The default ought to be that people are given an appointment. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause, but if he does not I hope that the House will have a chance to vote on it.
Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 address the scam problem. They are probing amendments, because the Minister has helpfully explained that he intends to introduce regulations under powers in the Bill that have the same effect as the regulations that would be introduced if the amendments were added to the Bill.
I was in touch—the Minister has heard me say this before—with a nurse who works in a health centre in my constituency. Her husband drives a black cab. Some years ago, a financial adviser whom they knew well and who had given them good advice previously called to  tell them about an opportunity to realise their pension savings early with no real downside. They took up his offer, and the upshot is that all their savings have gone, and they face a massive tax bill of about £60,000 with no means to pay it. The financial adviser, I gather, is living on a yacht off Tenerife.
All of us can understand how devastating is the impact on hard-working families of being robbed of their life savings in that way. People who have worked hard, who have done the right thing and who are entitled to look forward to a secure retirement suddenly find that their hopes have been destroyed. The Transparency Task Force, one of the groups that urged the Select Committee to undertake its current inquiry on scams, reports cases of spouses who, sometimes for years, have not dared tell their partners what has happened, so awful are the consequences. People wake up every day in dread of the future, often ashamed and embarrassed to have fallen for such bare-faced lies. Scammers groom people and make themselves trusted family friends. They warn savers that schemes will advise them not to transfer their money, and they claim that that is because the schemes want to hang on to it for their own gain. If the saver becomes aware that the receiving scheme has fallen foul of regulators, they say that that was just because someone was late filling in some forms.
It seems absurd that, as the law stands, trustees are compelled to make a transfer if a member demands it, even if they know that the money is going to crooks. Even if the receiving scheme is on the warning list published by the Financial Conduct Authority of firms known to be suspect, the law requires trustees to go ahead with the transfer. If they are slow about it, they can be fined. The Select Committee has launched a three-part inquiry looking at scams. There have been lots of calls for the Committee to look at the issue, because there is widespread revulsion at the scandals that have occurred and fear of the damage to individuals and to the industry as a whole. There is a particular worry that pension freedoms, plus the financial pressures of the pandemic, could create what the Pensions Regulator has called a golden age for pension scams, as people are anxious to get hold of their money.

Guy Opperman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He knows that I have exchanged a series of letters with the Work and Pensions Committee and with him, having met him and the all-party parliamentary group on financial crime and scamming, and that I have placed in the House of Commons Library letters of 6 October and 22 October. Following his suggestion in Committee, I clarified an extra point in a letter dated 11 November, which I placed in the Library. We share his revulsion on these particular points, and believe that clause 125, with suitable regulation, can address these issues.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given. One of the problems is that the responsibility for responding to scams cuts across many different bodies. The court ruling last week that the fraud compensation fund could be used to compensate some pension scam victims is a significant development.
The Police Foundation published an important  report in September called “Protecting people’s pensions: Understanding and preventing scans”, and that recommends a coherent set of principles for law  enforcement and regulators, including: the facilitation of a more co-ordinated and consistent response across the various agencies; a specialist fraud victim support service; regulation for introducers, who are not regulated at the moment; and, new digital technology for the police to support and speed up analysis of the large volumes of evidence collected in investigations.
The Bill was amended in the other place so that if a defined benefit transfer application raises one of the red flags on a prescribed list of features likely to indicate that a scam is going on, the trustees must delay the transfer until the saver has taken financial advice. The four amendments are based on work by the Pension Scams Industry Group, and I pay tribute to Margaret Snowdon and her colleagues for their work. The amendments would empower trustees to refuse the transfer if they had good grounds, based on the red flag analysis, for believing that the proposed transfer involved moving pension savings into a scam. I welcome the assurances that the Minister has given, and has just repeated, that he will bring forward regulations under existing powers in the Bill to have that effect. I noticed that research carried out last month by YouGov for the People’s Pension found that 78% of people questioned agreed that pension companies should be able to step in to stop a transfer if they believe it is a scam.
As I discussed in Committee, we need to be careful about exemptions from the regulations that the Minister will table. It would be a serious mistake to exempt all FCA-registered schemes, because unfortunately a lot of scams are FCA-registered. I am told, for example, that it is perfectly possible for schemes to be both FCA-registered and on the FCA warning list. An overseas adviser, probably somewhere else in the EU and not FCA-registered, could use the platform of a UK self-invested personal pension that is FCA-registered to offer exotic investments overseas. That is the form that many scams take, and we need to be careful not to exempt arrangements of that kind from the regulations when they come forward. We must avoid loopholes that allow crimes to carry on.
Implementation of the pensions freedoms without the intended safeguards has caused a great deal of harm. We must now put those safeguards in place. I welcome the assurances that the Minister has given, and I welcome the fact that the Department will consult widely on the regulations to be drawn up in parallel with the Select Committee inquiry. I hope we can make speedy progress. Drastically increasing the take-up of Pension Wise guidance, as proposed in new clause 1, is a key part of the solution.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee and to speak to the amendments that he has tabled and I have signed. I will start where he did, with the issue of mandatory guidance—or as near mandatory as we could make it, as I raised on Second Reading.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted the key statistics, which show that the take-up of this excellent, high-quality service—it attracts brilliantly good feedback from those who use it, and the people who provide that service accept that it changes the mind of 70-something per cent. of those who actually use it—is feebly low. Trials showed that the figure was somewhere around 3%, before the  nudge was implemented. That is not what this Parliament envisaged when, five or so years ago, we introduced the pension freedoms. The safeguard we put in place at that time was to create the Pension Wise service: free guidance so that people would have the chance to check what they were doing was the right thing for them in exercising choices they did not used to have. Those choices are incredibly complicated. In many cases, they are a once-and-for-all: once they have done something, they cannot reverse out of it.
That is why, as a Parliament, we were so keen for people to have that chance of a warning and to understand how this all works. They save up all their money for 40 or so years at work and get to the very end point. In many cases, they do not understand all the options. They do not know what they are being sold and they buy the wrong thing. The data in the FCA’s own retirement outcomes review from about three years ago shows that a high proportion of people are just defaulting into a drawdown scheme with their existing pension provider. They are not shopping around and looking at the other options.

Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at the moment the decumulation pension industry is unregulated, so there is no transparency on costs or on the kind of charges that may be applied to drawdown schemes? That is another area where people might be being scammed.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. If only she was on the Select Committee, because that is an issue I have raised on a few occasions. Over the past decade or so, we have very effectively regulated the accumulation phase, but we have not yet got the decumulation phase in quite the same position, with charge caps. The default pathways are a great step forward that will help people, but there is a real danger even with that that people will end up on a default pathway with their default provider, rather than looking around to see whether there are any better options in the market.
We desperately need to find ways to get more people to access the free high-quality guidance. There is no reason for them not to do so. They do not have to pay a huge fee or wait a long time, and it is not a painful experience. It can be a relatively short phone call just to alert them to the situation and provide information. We need to get those numbers up. Last time we had a pensions Bill we had amendments calling for default guidance. We accepted a compromise that the FCA would do some work and find a way of increasing take-up so we would not need to legislate. The problem is that the FCA, I am afraid, took quite a long time to get round to starting the process. It did studies with some larger pension providers, showing that if they used the nudge with an extra reminder and gave them the information that Pension Wise exists, they could get take-up up to about 14%, or one in seven people.
I accept that we do not want or need 100% of people approaching retirement to take pension guidance. Some will be on such large pensions they will take advice that they pay for. In that situation, there is not much need for them to have simpler guidance. The irony is that the data shows a lot of people use pension guidance as a first step towards advice. They use guidance to work out  what their options are and what they might need advice on, and then they go and get advice. That is a perfectly sensible use of guidance. I am not standing here saying let us have 100% of people, no matter if they have a tiny pension pot and there really is not much they can do with it, or if they have such huge ones they should be taking paid-for advice, but the right answer cannot be 14%. Even if we manage to roll out the nudge across every pension scheme in the country, we can only get to 14% of people. That cannot be the extent of our aspiration. That is why there have been various proposals on how we send people an appointment. If they do not take it, they can rearrange it, but until they have taken that appointment, or until they have signed to say that they understand they could have one but that they really, really do not want it, they cannot access their pension pot. I appreciate that some people will be rather angry when they pick up the phone to their pension scheme and are told they have to wait three weeks for a Pension Wise appointment before they can do that, but that, I think, is a price worth paying for them not to make a terrible mistake that they cannot reverse.
There is a real danger if people only get the nudge from their existing provider. We have all heard or taken part in those phone calls where we are told, “Now I’m going to have to switch the recorder on and read out some regulatory messages, but don’t worry, it’s all a bit of nonsense. It’s just one of those things we have to tell you. You don’t really need to listen. At the end just say yes.” Then they record the phone call and in that long spiel of “nonsense” there are the words, “and you have agreed to opt out of your Pension Wise appointment” and that is sufficient. That is the situation we are trying to avoid: people relying on one provider for their information.
I can accept that, as with all Back-Bench amendments, this proposal is not perfect. Is five years the right time? Are we going to end up spending far more than we need to? If, for some reason, the Minister will not accept this and has not come forward with alternative ways of doing this in law, I hope that he will at least accept that, even if we could roll out the nudge to all the providers that are as good as the ones the FCA used, a 14% aspiration is not sufficient. We could all work together, with the Select Committee and other key players, to work out what we think the right percentage take-up of Pension Wise would be, set that as a target for the FCA and if in two or three years it cannot get to that target, we can come back with legislation and put a default position in place. This would be a final warning to the FCA.

Guy Opperman: I am conscious of interrupting my hon. Friend’s flow, but that is clearly what the Government are seeking to do. Anyone who reads the 28 October report will see that it specifically states that there should be engagement with the Select Committee and various organisations. It also says that the product of the behavioural tests was limited, but there are many other ways that one can extend this as far as is practically possible.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Minister. That document came out on my birthday, so it was a very happy present in some ways. When we read it, however, we have to remember that the process the FCA went through was with some of the largest, most reputable and most capable pension schemes, and even then it got only an 11% increase from the derisory 3% to a 14% take-up. It is not clear to me that, when trying to roll that out over the whole  sector, we could even get that high if we were relying on smaller pension schemes or those that did not have the same resources. I hope the Minister will accept that we want to set a target that is much higher than 14%. Whether it needs to be 50% or some other figure is something that we could work on. Perhaps he could tell us in his closing remarks whether he agrees that the Government should set the FCA a much higher target. Would he at least accept the principle that, if we cannot get there by his preferred route of a nudge, we would have to look again at some kind of default system? Perhaps he will come back to that when he wraps up the debate.
One argument that is often used on this issue is that a lot more appointments would cost a lot more and that the levy would therefore go up. Yes, but I think that when we created this structure, we assumed there would be a lot more appointments and that the costs would be a lot higher. The benefits of a retiring person not making a catastrophic mistake with their 40 years’ lifetime savings outweigh the relatively small cost per person of providing the guidance. I know the Minister is very keen, as I would be, on the idea of a midlife MOT, but I do not think that that should replace this proposal. Giving someone a session in the middle of their working life, so that they know what their financial position is and what they can do about it, is not the same as giving someone help as they are about to start decumulating their pension so that they understand their options at that very important time. I am not sure that, if we told most people at the age of 45 what their options would be when they retired at 68, they would still have them in mind when they came to make those decisions. Pension Wise is not a substitute for a midlife MOT. We should have them both, and they should be as widely used as possible.
I personally would prefer a default guidance appointment, with someone having to sign in blood if they really did not want this free, excellent quality guidance before they could access their money. If the Government are not proposing that, I propose the compromise of setting a much higher target and if we cannot get there any other way, we will come back to this yet again.
The other amendments that I have signed cover scam prevention, which I think the Chair of the Select Committee and the Minister have dealt with pretty well. I accept there has to be a balance. If we have freedom of choice, people have to be free to do what they want with their own savings, and if some of the things they choose to do are ill advised or crazy, that is their choice. However, I want them to be able to make an informed choice so that they know the risks of what they are doing and will not be tricked by a heavy sell from a scam provider who is selling something totally unsuitable for someone of that level of means.
It must be right that when trustees have evidence or suspect that what they are being asked to do is clearly not in the best interests of the saver, they can refuse to make the transfer if those red flags appear. If there is other evidence that it just looks to be a rather stupid idea, they should at least be able to slow down the transaction, perhaps delaying it by a month. Perhaps they could refuse to do it unless the person took Pension Wise guidance, or at any rate find some way of slowing it down. One of the things that scammers need is momentum—they rush people into making a decision. The more we can build in delay, the more chance a  person has to think again, take better advice, discuss it with a member of their family, take Pension Wise guidance and not want to go ahead with the aggressive step that has been proposed to them. The Minister has come up with a way forward that does not need primary legislation, so I am glad that we are bringing the amendments forward only as probing amendments.
I turn to new clause 6 and the regulation of superfunds. I think I said on Second Reading that it is not often that Opposition and Back-Bench Members ask the Government to take more powers in a Bill. I make no criticism but it is slightly strange to legislate to require the Government to legislate on a future date. But I accept that the Opposition are trying to do the right thing. As the regulator has said that we need legislation for superfunds, I hope the Minister can assure us that we will be able to find time, as and when the legislation has been drafted, to get it through and we will not be stuck in a horrible situation of superfunds existing, gradually increasing market share, some things happening that we would rather were not happening, and then not being able to stop those because we do not have parliamentary time. With that reassurance, I would not need to consider supporting the new clause.
Various amendments on the dashboards have been tabled. My vision for dashboards has always been that we need as many dashboards out there as we can have so that people can see their pension saving status in whatever financial app they choose to use. I therefore would not support amendments that seek to restrict this to only one dashboard, even for a period of time. I do not support the idea of a dashboard being a two-way process: it would not only suck data in and inform you, but you could, on the tube home after a few beers on a Friday night, accidently transfer all your pension into something you will regret. So I do not support there generally being transaction capability.
I have a concern with amendment 15. If my existing pension scheme had a dashboard where I could check all my pension savings and I thought, “Oh God, they are much lower than I thought. I would like to increase my monthly contribution with my existing pension provider,” that would be a sensible transaction for me to start to make from the pensions dashboard. That is different from being able, via one click of a button, accidently to transfer all my pensions from one provider using that system. I therefore cannot support the wording of the amendment because it may go a little bit far. But I support the spirit of it.
I turn to amendment 16 and the Paris climate change agreement stuff. There is a real danger, if we are not careful, that we will put trustees in an invidious position. They rightly have a legal duty to act in the best interests of their members, and that duty is to get those members the best possible pension. If we put them under a second legal duty that would restrict where they could invest the pension scheme’s money, that may end up with lower returns. I assume that if Paris climate change agreement-friendly investments gave a higher return, they would choose them already, so there must be a reason why they would not want to do that.
We would be giving trustees a horrible dilemma: do they comply with the rule to get the best pension for their members, or the rule to get the most climate-friendly one? That would put them in an impossible position  and, sadly, it would probably be bad for savers. I think we need to approach that matter in a different way from that proposed in amendment 16. I support the spirit—

Anna McMorrin: Is the hon. Member saying that climate really is not very important because that is what I hear him saying on this? He is giving the trustees no confidence in having to make those decisions. How does he expect us to reach zero carbon by 2050 if that is the case?

Nigel Mills: I was coming on to say that there are better ways we could do this. I accept that we should encourage funds as strongly as we can to use the vast sums at their disposal to support investment in climate goals and other socially positive activities, but that should be done in part through member choice. There should be eco-friendly pension schemes and socially responsible ones, but they should allow their members to choose to opt into those schemes, and not have them as the default, if they are going to have a lower pension at the end of it.

Aaron Bell: Does my hon. Friend agree that an unintended effect of amendment 16 might be that pension funds feel they have to divest themselves from oil giants and so on? Those are the companies we need to address climate change—we cannot get to net zero without working with them—and divestment is not the right approach.

Nigel Mills: I agree, and I was coming on to that argument. I am not sure that achieving net zero can be pushed down to individual pension schemes and individual investment advisers. I suspect we will have to accept that between now and 2050, there will be some businesses out there that are bad for the environment but we are still going to need their products and services. We will need some of those even after 2050. We will achieve net zero by having other businesses that are more positive for the environment, with some still being bad for it. I am not sure that we can require every individual pension scheme to be a net zero investor. Otherwise, there will be a load of things that they just cannot invest in, as they cannot achieve that strategy.
I fully agree with the sentiment and agree that the industry needs to do more. I said on Second Reading that what we do not need are posh written documents that sit there with nice-sounding promises that never get implemented. We need pension schemes and their investment managers to be much more—

Jonathan Reynolds: I will not address this in detail because I will have my own opportunity to do so, but I make it very clear that the amendment does not enforce or mandate pension funds to be net zero. It would ensure that they have an investment strategy, including a stewardship strategy, that is consistent with those objectives. It is drafted specifically to address those concerns and hon. Members have nothing to worry about in that regard.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I am not sure what the amendment would achieve then. If we say to a pension scheme, “You need to make sure that your overall investments are consistent with the nationwide net zero strategy”, they can just say, “Of course we are because there is a nationwide net zero  strategy and we are just investing in legal businesses”, which we would presumably put taxes or carbon levies on to make sure we push this. It becomes a circle that would presumably mean only that the trustees have to produce a strategy and occasionally review it. It would not actually drive a great deal of different behaviour. I think I would want to see much more activist investment from pension schemes and their investment advisers to ensure that the businesses that they are investing in are sticking to their obligations and strategies on how they can reduce their impact on the environment, making sure that those promises are being kept on a management level rather than setting trustees an impossible target, which I am not sure would even mean what hon. Members seek to make it mean.

Guy Opperman: I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments, but surely the key point about clause 124 is that it does set out what we are trying to do on that issue, and it deals with the consultation that we issued in August specifically on the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) raised, taking action on climate risk and improving governance and reporting by occupational pension schemes. That is the measure that we should be focusing on.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Minister and I agree. The measures in the Bill are very sensible steps forward that will make a great difference. What is proposed in amendment 16 would just create a horrible mess for the pensions industry without really achieving anything further, so I will not support it if it is pushed to a vote.

Wendy Chamberlain: I would like to speak to amendments 1 and 6, which have been tabled in my name and the names of other Liberal Democrat Members, and in favour of the cross-party amendment 7, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), as well as to his new clauses 4 and 5. I was very pleased to see new clauses 4 and 5 tabled and I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group on plumbers’ pensions—chaired by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—of which I am a vice-chair.
I have a constituent who was a member of the plumbers’ pension scheme, and the trustees failed to notify him and others that, were they to leave the scheme, he would find himself liable under section 75. He had been a responsible small business employer, enabling all his employees to be part of a pension scheme and to save for their retirement. When he retired and wound up the business, he was not made aware of the consequences by the trustees from a pensions perspective of doing so. That means that through no fault of his own, he is now in a position where, because his business is no longer operating, he cannot apply for current easement schemes and, because his business was not incorporated, he is personally liable for the debt. He is now an elderly man and is being pursued by the trustees. They are threatening to repossess his house and his life savings are at risk. Were that to happen, the sums recovered from him would not even pay off half the outstanding debt.
My constituent told me:
“We are now in the third year of this, and it is taking a toll on my health, and also on the health of my wife.”
If passed, new clause 4 would turn my constituent’s life around. The safeguards are there. His total debt is only a tiny proportion of the total liabilities, and the trustees  have determined that the majority of cessation events will be too costly or lengthy to seek recovery. That is one of the issues here: there is an injustice going on that has not received the attention it deserves because relatively few people have been affected by it, but that also presents the opportunity that something can be done and I hope that the Minister will comment accordingly on new clause 4 and look further at this plumbers’ pension issue. It is causing hardship and anxiety for, arguably, an increasingly vulnerable group of people.
I shall now address part 5 and schedule 10 and, in particular, clause 123 on defined-benefit schemes. My colleague in the Lords, Baroness Bowles, tabled the original amendment to clause 123 that would ensure that defined-benefit schemes are treated differently, depending on whether they are open or closed. I pay tribute to Baroness Bowles. Her amendment had cross-party support in the Lords, so it was disappointing that the Government removed it in Committee two weeks ago.
My amendment 1 would reinstate Baroness Bowles’s amendment, and amendment 7 in the name of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts is a revised version of it, which I have also signed. I did not have the chance to sit on the Bill Committee, but I did follow proceedings and I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments during Committee on open defined-benefit schemes. He said:
“We acknowledge that if such schemes do continue to admit new entrants and do not mature then the scheme will not actually reach significant maturity. We are content that such a scheme retains the same flexibility in its funding and investment strategies that all immature schemes have.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 81.]
I welcome those comments, which imply that open schemes should, and will, be treated differently from closed schemes, in accordance with different investment, liquidity and maturity, and I hope the Minister will be able to recommit to that statement on the Floor of the House today. I urge him to accept either amendment 1 or amendment 7, which would put that commitment on the face of the Bill and provide much needed reassurance for open schemes that have contacted me, and, I am sure, have contacted other Members, in advance of this debate.
We need that reassurance because there is real concern about the regulator’s consultation. Looking at the consultation document, there are places where it looks like the regulator is making the right noises on DB schemes.

Guy Opperman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. I will not have the chance to answer in detail in closing, but I am very happy to endorse, and repeat as if I were to say the exact same words, the very detailed comments I made at Committee as to the way in which open schemes will be treated on an ongoing basis.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I would ask him again to consider accepting either amendment 7 or amendment 1, which would put that commitment on the face of the Bill.
We need that reassurance because there is a real concern about the regulator’s consultation. In other places there appears to be a conflation, in that consultation document, of open and closed structures, with references to the same treatment and same risk profile between open and closed schemes. But it is just not possible to have the same risk profile between an open and a closed scheme.

Richard Graham: This is an important point and the Minister will know that there are open schemes with considerable assets which could be deployed to the advantage of this nation in investing in means of growth for the future. Where they are funded, being open, it gives them a huge advantage and of course the current situation on bond yields makes it even less helpful for them purely to invest in gilts and so on. So I strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister could refer to this again in winding up?

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of my remarks. I hope the Minister will comment on this in winding up.
Open and closed schemes are on a continuum. A scheme opens, it matures, it becomes closed, it reaches the absolute end of the range of maturity, and the risk profile varies with that maturity. However, parts of the consultation document do not seem to recognise this, which is concerning. There is an understandable desire from employers and employees for this to be clarified. There is real concern that the regulator wants open schemes to be considered as if they were on the brink of forced closure, but that means effectively crystallising their investment structure into a closed structure and preventing them from acting as they need to, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. So I ask the Minister to recommit to the House that this will not happen, otherwise our concerns will remain, and Baroness Bowles and her colleagues in the Lords will continue to press the Government on this when amendments return to the other place.
There is a huge risk to getting this wrong. Members highlighted on Second Reading the issue of railway pensions. Their campaigning has been very important in raising the potential impact of this Bill on defined-benefit schemes. I also want to highlight the charitable sector and many large charities that rely on DB schemes: Oxfam, Age UK, Cancer Research, the National Trust and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to name but a few. My amendment 6 would require the Government to carry out an economic impact assessment on the effect of changes to DB schemes on that important sector. We have already heard that open schemes will end up with deficits of £120 billion to £160 billion if they are treated in the same way as closed schemes.
6.15 pm
We are in the midst of a pandemic and huge economic shocks, the impact of which we cannot fully predict at this time. Is now the time to saddle companies and charities with that extra debt, and for what purpose? What of individual savers themselves? Can we reasonably expect people potentially to double their personal contributions? Surely a more likely outcome from that requirement is that people will simply cease to contribute, and that will apply further pressure to the viability of that scheme.
There is a real danger that as a result of the deficits, charities—some of which I have mentioned—will go bust, and that is not a policy that any Government should be promoting, particularly given the support that the Government have put into the sector during the course of the pandemic. That would surely be a bad policy at any time. As I said earlier, I am encouraged by the Minister’s statements in Committee, and I thank  him for recommitting to those in his intervention, but I hope he appreciates that we urgently need further reassurances. I do not see why such provision could not be made in the Bill, as indeed it was when it came from the other place. It would make sure that the regulator was acting in a sensible way. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
My first contribution when taking on the role of DWP spokesperson for my party was on ensuring the triple lock for the state pension. In that debate, I highlighted the need to ensure a sustainable state pension, particularly given the intergenerational divide emerging for young people in this country. We should not, through this Bill, be potentially driving more people into reliance on the state pension by making personal pension provision unaffordable for individuals or institutions.

Gareth Davies: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate today, as it was on Second Reading and in Committee. I would like specifically to address amendment 16 to clause 124. Let me start by saying how great it is that we have cross-party support for policies that push forward our efforts on climate change. We should all be very proud of the fact that we are one of the first major countries to legislate to become a net zero country by 2050. I have long talked about the influence and power of financial services and financial markets to move things forward, but sadly I cannot support amendment 16. I will set out three reasons. The first is the unintended consequences, the second concerns divestment and the third relates to focus.
First, amendment 16 is well-meaning, but it would have unintended consequences. I fear fund managers would be limited in what they were able to invest in. I say that because of the limited environmental, social and corporate governance data in certain asset classes in certain markets around the world. If we look at emerging markets, private equity or in small-cap companies, ESG data is sporadic at best. It is getting better all the time, but at this point in time the market is not mature enough for the amendment to apply for managers. I fear that managers would be limited, and that would result in sub-optimal investments and mean that they could not fulfil their fiduciary responsibility.

Felicity Buchan: Is my hon. Friend aware that industry agrees with his position? For instance, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has stated that on behalf of industry.

Gareth Davies: I am aware that the PLSA has stated that it is concerned about this amendment, for the reasons I have described. The second reason why I would agree with the association is my fear that the amendment will imply to trustees that they have to adopt a policy of divestment. As has been seen over decades, a divestment policy, as well-meaning as it is, does not actually change the things that people are seeking to change. Part of the reason is that a stock market is essentially a marketplace, so if someone wants to divest, somebody has to invest, and therefore there is a negligible impact on the underlying company. That is why for tobacco, for climate change and for guns in the United States, the divestment policies adopted by other pension funds just have not worked. I fear that such provision would cause confusion around  divestment for pension trustees. It is very hard to draw a line where the policy ends. Some may claim, or desire, that they divest from oil and gas, but where does it end? There are other sectors that clearly contribute to climate change—whether it be haulage companies, taxi companies, car companies, or aviation companies—so where does it end? That causes some confusion for trustees. An investment policy should be put in place at a ground level.
Thirdly, when compared with engagement as an investment strategy, a divestment approach is just a very weak policy. I say that as somebody who comes from fund management and managing an ESG business. As owners of companies, we could call on chief executives and chief financial officers to engage on ESG issues such as climate change. We could vote at annual general meetings. We had those companies at the table to be able to influence them. If we divest, we lose that influence—we lose that ability to change and influence a company.

Guy Opperman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the campaign that he has waged to persuade the Treasury to have green gilts available for pension funds to invest in is exactly the point that we are seeking? It would mean businesses and pension funds working in a partnership with Government and regulators to solve the problems and the issues that we need to solve to get net zero. Without that partnership, we will actually go backwards, not forwards.

Gareth Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for his generous remarks and I thank him for his support of my campaign to bring about green gilts in this country. I agree that it is a way in which pension funds can contribute to the climate change effort in a meaningful way, moving billions of pounds of capital towards the goals that everybody across this House really wants to achieve, so I thank him for that intervention.
Finally, I fear that, although the amendment is well-intentioned, it is poorly focused. In my experience, trustees want to invest with purpose and according to their values. Likewise, fund managers have, over the past several years, moved great mountains, a lot of money and a lot of effort to incorporate ESG risk into most of their investment processes, and I do not believe that any asset manager in the future will be able to survive unless they integrate ESG climate risk as part of their investment process.

Richard Graham: As a trustee of the parliamentary pension fund, may I highlight that the changes on page 118 of the Bill on climate change risk are incredibly important and will help encourage trustees and pension funds in general to make investments that are pro-environment, pro-green and pro-climate change? I am absolutely in agreement with my hon. Friend that the proposed additional new clause 16, which would require pension funds to align with the Paris agreement goal, is a step too far. Does he agree that the Minister should focus on that in his summing up as well?

Gareth Davies: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that the Bill is sufficient in its current form to be able to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is to get pension funds to invest in a climate-aware way.
The last point that I will make in concluding is around this point on focus. In my experience, it is not the fund managers or the trustees whom we need to persuade or to make do anything, but the middle men  and women—the gatekeepers, the investment consultants —who typically require a five-year track record and £100 million in assets held by fund managers and managed by fund managers. In my experience, that was always the issue. We were running money in a way that was really pushing things forward in terms of our climate targets. We knew that the pension clients really wanted to invest with us, but, because we could not meet the requirements of the investment consultants, we could not marry the two together. If we use the combined intellect, passion and energy of this House, from all parties, to come up with a solution to that, we could make great progress.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am going to suspend the House for a short time—probably five or 10 minutes—to allow some extra cleaning to take place. Could Members leave the Chamber, so that the cleaning can take place? The bell will ring a minute before we are due to resume.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could tell the House why there was the necessity for the further cleaning of the Chamber. I understand that this is the first time that this has ever happened. Is there anything in particular that the House needs to be informed about because of that arrangement?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. We were asked to suspend the House just to ensure that there was a little bit of extra cleaning. I do not have any further information other than that, but I am sure that it is precautionary, and if there is anything further that Members need to be informed of, I am sure that they will be.

Jim Shannon: First, let me thank all those who have made contributions, which have been excellent. I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) for the contribution he made just before me. It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. Although I know that this is not the purpose of this Bill, I cannot in all good conscience let the occasion go without raising the issue of the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, who still want their pension scheme. Once more, I look to the Minister for a response on that.
I want to speak to new clause 1 and some of the other amendments, ever mindful of the fact that the Bill provides for territorial extent, as set out in clause 117 and schedule 8, clause 120 and schedule 9, clauses 118, 119 and 129 and schedule 11. Pensions are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but this is an area where Northern Ireland has long maintained parity with Great Britain. There is, in effect, a single systems of pensions across the UK, with many pensions schemes, and indeed the regulator, the pensions ombudsman, the Pension Protection Fund and so on operating on a UK-wide basis.
Devolved government has now been restored in Northern Ireland, and we are pleased to have it in place. On 1 June, the Northern Ireland Assembly approved the legislative consent motion on the Bill, as introduced, and a further LCM will be necessary to cover amendments to the Bill, which the Northern Ireland Minister for Communities has agreed will be done and should extend this to Northern Ireland. So some things are positive on that.
I have been in contact with a number of pensions bodies that have expressed concern about the proposals in the Bill. We all know how essential a good pension is, and it is becoming more important with each month. I am sure that I am not the only one to have seen the losses in pensions in this year’s statement. I have a decent understanding of how my pension pays out, but I was listening to the girls in my office and it is clear that, although my staff members in their 40s and 50s have a grasp on their pension, the two staff members in their 20s and 30s do not and they do not seem to be able to understand just how it works. The older girls say, “I wouldn’t swap my pension but I like to see what is in it,” and they have already had a look at their pensions to know what they have. Many people are wise and astute enough to do that, but others are not and they have no understanding of what can be done. There is more to doing our best to secure our financial future than simply opening a letter—there has to be more than that.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) referred to new clause 1, which underlines the importance of an easily accessible, easy to navigate pensions dashboard that is easier to understand than an annual statement. The Association of British Insurers has said:
“Pensions Dashboards are a necessary addition to Automatic Enrolment. More than 10 million people have now been automatically enrolled into workplace pensions through inertia, and will need to find their pension pots and make decisions about them.”
We are all probably at that age, Minister, when we have to think about our pension pots, and if we are not doing so, there is something seriously wrong, because we should be. The ABI went on to say:
“Already 1 in 5 adults admit to having lost a pension pot and latest PPI research suggests that there is at least £19.4bn held in pots that consumers have lost track of.”
It is horrendous to hear that.

Guy Opperman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. He is rightfully regarded as an institution in this place and long may that continue. I hope that he will understand that a combination of the pensions dashboard, as set out in clause 118, which will give people online access to their pensions, simpler statements, which the Department is taking forward in respect of written statements, and many other pieces of work we are doing to trace individual pensions will make tracking down past pensions an awful lot easier.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that response. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 50 million pension pots will be lost or dormant by 2050, and people are vulnerable. We hope that the intervention he made may allay some of the fears people have. The ABI continued:
“Pensions Dashboards will not only help to find lost pensions and reduce the cost of financial advice, but should also prompt people to engage more closely with and save more into their pension, aiding consumers to make informed retirement decisions.”
That is really what we have to be doing—the thrust of this debate should be to try to focus that attention. The ABI went on:
“Pensions Dashboards are now woven into nine different Government and regulatory policy strategies, including the Government’s UK Digital Strategy, the FCA’s Retirement Outcomes Review and the Cabinet Office’s Dormant Assets Commission.”
The ABI also tells us that 60% of 25 to 34-year-olds would be most comfortable viewing their pensions through their mobile banking app—because that is the nature of the future—compared with only 11% of those aged 65-plus, which is probably my generation and thereabouts; 20% of those aged 65-plus would be comfortable receiving their pension data via post, compared with only 4% of 18 to 24-year-olds; and 61% of those aged 55 to 64 would find it most convenient to view their savings through the pension provider’s website, compared with 30% of 18 to 24-year-olds. What does that tell us? It tells us that people have different ways to access their pension, to look at what it means to them and to get the answers that they need.
More people in Northern Ireland feel that they have low financial capability—indeed, Northern Ireland has the lowest proportion of all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Fewer Northern Irish people describe themselves as “confident and savvy consumers”, with 43% saying so, versus the UK average of 52%—so we do fall behind—or as highly confident in managing their money, with 26% saying so, against the UK average of 37%. Fewer consider themselves to be highly knowledgeable in financial matters, with 10% saying so, against the UK average of 16%. We in Northern Ireland need the necessary advice so that we can decide, collectively, what our pension pots are worth.
The figures I have outlined suggest that pension savers in Northern Ireland may appreciate the benefit of a Pension Wise appointment even more than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Sadly, the DWP, FCA and Pension Wise data does not split user stats by location, so we do not know user stats for Northern Ireland; we know only the headline UK-wide stat that just 14% of pension pots were accessed after the Pension Wise service was used. The Northern Ireland proportion of current retirees whose main income is the state pension is the same as that for the UK as a whole; however, that proportion is predicted to fall back to 37% for those aged 45 and over and not retired.
I was reading through some of the briefings, and one of them said that the DWP had recently confirmed its intention to base new guidance and regulations on a “stronger nudge”. I am of a generation that can remember Monty Python and the story that went, “Elbow, elbow, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more,” but in this instance we need to say a whole lot more. We look to the Minister for more than just a nudge when it comes to the key points. We hope that Pension Wise guidance sessions will be available, and I think it will be good for people to take them on. In a survey of some 1,000 defined -contribution pension savers aged 45 to 54, nearly eight in 10, or 77%, said that they wanted impartial guidance to help them to understand their pension access options, yet a larger proportion, 81%, did not know that they were entitled to receive free, impartial guidance from Pension Wise. Fewer than half said that they understood  enough about pensions to make decisions and just 4%, or one in 25, said that they would opt out of a pre-booked guidance session. I welcome the Minister’s response to the intervention; I feel that that might just make the difference for a great many people.
In relation to the workplace—[Interruption.] My voice is starting to go; it is going to crack up shortly. It is significant that greater numbers of people will have defined-contribution pension savings as a result of being auto-enrolled into workplace schemes. For these people, achieving financial security and wellbeing in retirement will depend on making well-informed decisions. This is a much greater challenge for those who do not get impartial guidance or regulated financial advice. I can well remember when my mother took me down, as 16-year-old—that was not yesterday, by the way—to open my first bank account, and she had me in a pension scheme at 18. That is many, many years ago—

Angela Eagle: Surely not!

Jim Shannon: I am afraid it is. My mother was very wise—she still is: she is 89 years old now and is even wiser today than she was whenever I was 18. It is always good to have your mum to tell you what to do, even though you might be a lot older. But that is by the way.
It is clear that the way that we are doing these things is not as effective as it should be. New clause 1 is essential to underline the importance of people understanding their pension and taking control of it, with appropriate advice, rather than simply thinking, “This is for when I’m old.” Take it from me: that time comes quicker than one could possibly imagine.
I conclude with this: the issue is incredibly complex, and it needs a complex answer. I look to the Minister to outline how he believes that issue has been addressed in the Bill. I feel that we need both a robust dashboard and compulsory written statements, and I am not content that that has been provided for in the Bill. I respectfully ask the Minister for that advice and help. We have to get pensions right for everyone, whether they be 18 or 65. We will do it together.

Shaun Bailey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and all the other speakers in this thoughtful and well considered debate. It was also a pleasure to serve on the Public Bill Committee; it is great to see so many of its members in the Chamber today. I pay tribute to the Clerks and staff on that Committee as well as to right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their work, diligence and patience in taking part in that Committee.
I am going to focus my comments predominantly on new clause 1, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I also serve. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his fantastic work in chairing that Committee over the past six months. He has been an absolutely fantastic and very diligent, hard-working Chair.
To focus on the scams point for a minute, I should say that scams often come from the fact that people have not had advice, and those at not the bottom end but what would perhaps be classed as the normal end of the  market are most exposed by not having access to advice. Given the comments in the Chamber so far, I think we can all agree with the principle that everyone needs access to advice. We need to ensure that people are informed as they make these life-changing decisions. From our casework and the evidence that the Select Committee has heard about people who have lost their savings—the money that they have accrued over years and years—we know the impact of not having the advice. We know the importance of ensuring that the advice is there.
I agree in principle with the underlying purpose of the new clause, but I question whether primary legislation is the right place for it. There could be a place for it within the secondary regulations that will be needed as part of the process to ensure that people have access to correct advice.
I absolutely agree with the comments about the Pension Wise service; we have heard how fantastic and well received that has been. People have genuinely been impacted by their exposure and access to the Pension Wise service. There is definitely a role for the service to play—there is no doubt about that at all. The fact that 72% of people who access the service change their decision shows clearly that advice has to be central to pension planning as we go forward.
The people most vulnerable to scams are those who most need the advice—they do not have humungous pension pots to fall back on or above-£30,000 pots they can transfer; these are ordinary working people who need the advice. I am thinking of the people in my constituency, in places such as Tipton, Wednesbury and Oldbury—people who have worked for 40 years at CLM Construction in Oldbury, for example. They have paid into a scheme and now want to draw from it; they are the ordinary working people who rely on the advice.
The Minister has given assurances that he will take a listening approach when considering the secondary regulations—I am sure that in summing up he will discuss what that means, not that I want to give him any more work to do in what will have to be an extensive summing up. I feel that it is there that the spirit of what the new clause is trying to achieve can really be brought to life. I agree with what many right hon. and hon. Members have said: there is a wider debate to have about how we ensure that those on the ordinary end of the scale, who do not have humungous pension pots but have worked hard for what they have got, get that advice.
The logistical challenges that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) outlined in his intervention—he is not in his place now, because of social distancing—can be challenged effectively. This is an interesting proposition, and I do commend the right hon. Member for East Ham for the work he has done, because I do think there is a place for it. However, we need to have such debates on secondary regulations to really get into the nuts and bolts of how this operates and how this works, so that we can get this right.
We also have to remember—this has been picked up as well—that there is an existing regime with how the FCA operates. It sends out guidance when someone is two months from their 50th birthday and so on. That is not to say it is perfect; we know it is not perfect. It is not advice as would want to see it; it is a fact sheet that people are then left to interpret as they wish. It is not where we want to get to. I think we agree with where we  want to get to—the destination—but it is just the mechanics of how we do that. From that perspective, I agree with the principle of new clause 1, but I think there is a better place for how we do this. I absolutely commend the principle behind it—at its core, it is fundamentally about ensuring that people have access to the right advice to make informed decisions to ensure they protect the money and what they have built up through hard work—because it is absolutely essential.
I am very conscious of time, but if I may, I will turn very quickly to amendment 16 which is to clause 124. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies)—I absolutely commend him, by the way, for the work he has done on green finance and the green gilt work he has done—covered this so well that he has taken most of the points I wished to add. However, I will just re-emphasise one point he made about the unintentional consequences particularly of divestment.
Many of the organisations that perhaps would be impacted by this are actually the organisations that we need to lead on these new green challenges. As part of my research, I looked at some of the organisations that we might think of as ones that may need to be divested from. We looked at the oil companies like Shell, BP, Texaco and so on, and the work they have done—for example, that of Shell on biofuels, or BP on renewable energy in homes. I claim no interest—people can google it, see it and find it—but I think we risk a real unintentional consequence here of actually going backwards and almost shooting ourselves a bit, because by divesting from those schemes we inhibit the work that we need to solve this climate crisis.
In concluding my remarks, I think the principle of new clause 1 is absolutely right, but I think there is more to be done on the mechanics, and the place for this is in the debate on the secondary regulations and making sure that we absolutely drill down into this. I am reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister’s reassurances on how he is going to approach that. On amendment 16, I think there are some real unintended consequences that, if we are not careful, could actually take us backwards, not forwards.

Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) in this reasonably consensual debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is nothing like seeing men rushing into the Chamber in hazmat suits to ensure that we are as brief as we possibly can be, even though—and this is no criticism of the Chair—the grouping of these amendments means we have rather a lot of things to refer to in this gigantic group. One of the things I am going to do is to refer only in passing to new clause 1, because so much has already been said about it, and to concentrate a bit more of my remarks on the pensions dashboard and some of the amendments there, because that has not really received much attention in the comments we have had so far.
There are some themes that are really important to bear in mind in this whole group and in the Bill that we are discussing today. The first is strengthening consumer protections, which is what new clause 1 is about, and ensuring that when people are making a decision about probably some of the largest amount of funds they have laid aside for their entire lives in savings, and they are going to make decisions about what to do with that  money that are irreparable, they do not get their heads turned by a slick advertising at one end and con artists at the other end, and that they get enough time, space and consideration to make the choice that is right for them.
Our pensions landscape is very complex, and it is getting more and more complex as it matures, changes and evolves. We are left trying to deal in legislation with DB schemes, DC schemes and CDC schemes, which we all welcome, but all these changes and innovations over time make the pensions landscape difficult for people to navigate. As we all know, consumer protections are quite weak, and the introduction of so-called pension freedoms in 2014 increased the chances for mis-selling and scams, so we have to be very careful. That is why I support new clause 1. I support any protections that will make it slightly more inconvenient for people to shift their money and that will reassure regulators, providers and customers of pensions that this decision is the right one for them, because, as we have heard, it is irreparable.
I do not agree with those who have said that we have enough protection against scams. The cost of losing a pension is huge and irreparable. The risks for scammers and con artists are quite low, but the minimum rewards are huge. Because our capacity to deal with fraud in this country has been eaten away, meaning that it is not nearly as good as it should be and needs to be improved massively, the chances of scammers being caught are quite low too. The potential for high rewards from conning people out of their life savings versus the risks taken means that we are a magnet for scammers.
What we have to do—and what the Bill begins to do—is try to close some of those loopholes. That is what amendments 2 to 5 are about. It is also about regulating superfunds, which is covered in new clause 6, and creating the new criminal offences that we all agreed with in Committee, to try to strengthen regulation, put up some real barriers and increase the risk that those who are trying to con people out of their pensions will be caught. I support amendments 2 to 5, as well as new clause 6, which is about regulating superfunds.
The introduction of the pensions dashboard is one of the things that will mark the Bill as an important piece of pensions legislation. I commend the Minister for all the work he has done to create the capacity for pensions dashboards to be introduced, so that information can be collected from disparate places and presented in a way that is meaningful to consumers. We are now trying to make the pensions dashboard more useful and important and to ensure that it is introduced in a way that does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Amendments 11, 13, 14 and 15 are about how the dashboard should work. While I commend the Minister for the huge amount of work he has done, he has unfortunately overturned some of the amendments made in the other place on the dashboard. One of those amendments would have ensured that the first dashboard introduced was the publicly provided objective one, which would have a year to bed in before other commercially offered dashboards were introduced. The other place decided that that would be a good thing to do. The Minister and his Government have decided—he gave us explanations in Committee—that it would not be, and  that he wants multifarious dashboards to crop up all over the place, some of which are commercially offered, and some of which I think would just confuse the situation.

Guy Opperman: rose—

Angela Eagle: The Minister is hopping about on his feet, so I will give way.

Guy Opperman: It is hard to hop from a sedentary position, but I will do my level best in future. I accept that the hon. Lady is a former Pensions Minister and speaks with great authority, but the Government feel that dashboards should be created in the circumstances where the customer is, rather than making the customer come to them. Even if one did not accept what the Government said, I specifically rely on the fact that the no. 1 consumer organisation in the country, Which?, specifically said that the Government’s view is the right one on this issue.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Minister for that point. We had this discussion in Committee, and we are having it again on the Floor of the House. I think it is worth exploring, but within the context that I think dashboards are a good idea.
With new amendments, the Opposition are trying to get more information in the dashboard, which the Minister is trying to keep a bit simpler. The information that our amendments would introduce into dashboards includes fees, charges, costs and price—information that I would say is quite important to consumers who are thinking about where to put their money or whether to switch their money around. In what other area where services were being bought would we try to hide the price of the service that is being offered in quite this way? People argue that it will just confuse consumers to know how much money is being taken out of their funds in charges or fees. I would say that the opposite is true. The more transparency we have in the dashboard, the better.
I know that others will speak about investment philosophies and amendments 16 to 24, which are also in this group, so I will leave that to them. Overall, the Bill is a good thing. The introduction of CDCs is an extremely good thing. Despite the fact that we are having this boxing match about scams and strengthening the rules against them, increased consumer protections and increased transparency, I think that everyone on both sides of the House will note that the Pension Schemes Bill, when it becomes law, will take forward some of the work that needs to be done to try to ensure that all our constituents, whether they are of a younger generation or a slightly older one, can look forward to a framework that will guarantee them some reasonable income in retirement. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would argue with that.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I welcome her constructive approach and her general support for the Bill. I have no formal interest to declare, but I should tell the House that my father was a consulting actuary for much of his career and went on to run a friendly society, so I was brought up on probabilities and portfolios. I did not just learn my timetables; I also learned my mortality tables.
This was my first Public Bill Committee, so I took the opportunity just to listen. It was a highly informative and very good-natured Bill Committee. I thank the Minister for that; I thank the Clerks, and I thank all Opposition Members and the Scottish National party Front Bench for the constructive comments that they made in Committee. Given that one of my predecessors in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Mr John Golding, once spoke for over 11 hours in Committee, I think the Committee should perhaps be grateful that I did not speak, and I note that this debate has to finish by 9 pm as well.

Angela Eagle: I knew John Golding, and he never spoke for one second longer than he needed to for a particular political purpose. I know that he spoke for that length of time because he was conducting some parliamentary manoeuvres that were extremely important for the progressive cause.

Aaron Bell: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Yes, I think Mr Golding successfully pushed the Telecommunications Bill to the other side of the 1983 general election, but that election, as she may well remember, did not go well for her party.
This Bill makes pensions safer, better and greener. I will briefly turn to some amendments on each of those three topics. Amendments 2 to 5 are on scams. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) acknowledged that those are probing amendments. I will not repeat the story that I told on Second Reading of my constituents who suffered from a pension scam—all hon. Members will have similar stories—but those scams are extremely destructive. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) said, they often affect people who have no real experience of financial matters. At a vulnerable point in their lives, they can be taken advantage of, so I welcome the work that has been done, and I welcome the commitments that the Minister has made to work further in this area.
On the greener side of things, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West, I cannot add much to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), who set out the reasons why the Government disagree with the amendment 16. It is an inappropriate use of the legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), on whom I intervened, said, the Government have other ways to make sure that companies meet those targets. We cannot ask pension trustees to make those fine decisions. I firmly believe that the Bill is a real step forward, but engagement, not divestment, is the way to proceed.
I turn principally to dashboards which, for me, are the most exciting part of the Bill, enabling the same sort of transparency, flexibility and, crucially, easy tracking of our pensions as we have all come to expect of our current accounts, credit cards and mortgages. We are in the information age, and we need to make that information accessible to people, particularly with all the stuff that we have heard in Committee and on Second Reading about the number of jobs and pension schemes that people have. Auto enrolment, in particular, enables people to bring their pensions into one place and perhaps to consolidate them, which is a real step forward, as it empowers people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who cannot be here today, said in  Committee, the key principle is informed choices. When we inform people about their choices, that can drive sensible decision making on, for example, consolidation.
The amendments that seem to circumscribe dashboards —for example, amendment 15, 8, 14 and others—are not necessary. More than that, they would be frustrated by the market. The Which? report that I quoted on Second Reading said:
“It is clear that even if the government was to decide that there should only be a single government-run dashboard, other private sector dashboards would continue to develop outside of the regulated market. These may rely on screen-scraping or other potentially unsecure forms of transmitting customer data.”
Alternative products are already springing up, and we cannot hold back the tide like Canute. We have to go where the customer is, as the Minister said when intervening on the hon. Member for Wallasey.
I do not think that we should try to buck the market in regulation. Instead, we should regulate effectively, and that is what the Bill does. I urge the House to reject the amendments, although I accept that they are well meaning. As many hon. Members have said, there is real agreement among us about how we should proceed, but I do not think that any of the amendments are necessary. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill, and I look forward to the safer, better and greener pensions that we all deserve.

Pete Wishart: I support new clauses 4 and 5, which I tabled with my hon. Friends. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). This has been a good-natured debate. We all have particular issues we want to raise in relation to the Bill, but everything has been presented in a compelling, interesting and mainly consensual way.
The pernicious impact of section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 on multi-employer pension schemes, particularly plumbers’ pensions, must rate as one of the biggest pension injustices of recent years. The litany of devastating stories of honest, hard-working men and women who face crippling debts and liabilities, sometimes of hundreds of thousands of pounds, is simply heartbreaking. We heard another example today from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who is not in the Chamber. I have had plumbers, including some in their 60s or even 70s, who have been forced to continue to work because of the effects of the scheme. They have been in tears describing to me what that will do to them and the impact on their life and health. They are on all sorts of support to try and get through the real concerns and anxieties about possibly losing everything, from their home and bank balance to their livelihood and sense of self. It has been a dreadful experience for anyone who has been caught up in it. These are people who have worked all their lives, earnestly and honestly paying into their pension scheme, believing that their retirement was safe, secure and something to look forward to, only for it to become a living nightmare.
I have been trying to get justice for these plumbers for some five years now. I formed the all-party parliamentary group on plumbers’ pensions in an attempt to get this addressed and resolved. Over the years, we have met successive Pensions Ministers, including the current Minister, with colleagues from all parties, we have secured debates in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the  House, and we have brought in a private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). We have even facilitated brainstorming sessions involving officials from the DWP, the pension providers, SNIPEF—the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation—and some of the trustees, all without being able to address the fundamental problems associated with section 75 of the 1995 Act. Here we are, years later, with this still unresolved, and some plumbers facing the possibility of ruin for doing exactly nothing wrong.
I appreciate that the Government have addressed this responsibly, and even helpfully. I congratulate and thank them for the easements that have been introduced in the course of the past few years. But there has been no resolution to the central issue, and today there are still plumbers in all our constituencies who will be facing crippling debts and their retirement being made an absolute misery. We know that this is difficult to resolve. We know that the best brains in pensions across the country have looked at it to try to find a solution. My plea to the Minister is that we cannot give up: we cannot simply desert these people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. If we have not found the solution yet, we must keep on looking for it. We will keep on trying to ensure that we do get justice for these people, We cannot leave a certain section of our constituents in such a hellish limbo in being faced with these demanding constraints and pressures.
If I could find a couple of words that would adequately describe section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, they would be “unintended consequences”. There is nothing wrong with section 75. It is designed to meet a few demands and requirements, and it is actually quite a sensible and elegant inclusion in the Bill, but the unintended consequences for these multi-employer pension schemes have been absolutely and utterly devastating. Since 2005, any employer who has left the scheme or prompted a trigger event is required to pay the section 75 debt. That debt is calculated on a buy-out basis that assumes that the whole scheme has been bought out by an insurance company, but more than that, the accrual value that the insurance companies would put on to it is real testament to that value. They are then required to pay part of the orphan liabilities of past employers who may have become insolvent or left the scheme before 2005 and who did not pay their own section 75 debts. This means that those who remain in the scheme are required to pick up the debt of others who have been able to leave it without that burden being placed on them. Under no circumstances can this be thought to be right.
Some Pensions Ministers—I give credit to the Department, which has looked at this very seriously—have gone the extra mile to try to have this resolved, but I want to mention one of them who was getting to the heart of it—Richard Harrington. Richard did a huge amount of work on this. He worked diligently on it, putting energy, resource and commitment into trying to find a solution. I am pretty certain that if Richard was still in government he would be closer to finding some sort of resolution. I have only had one meeting on this with the current Minister, but I detected an enthusiasm from him to try to get this resolved. I will overlook some of the comments that he made in Committee in  response to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I hope that the Minister may take a generous view of some of our amendments, because they are actually very modest amendments that would at least start to improve the situation of those who are facing the biggest liabilities. There are only about 30 of them.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have looked at this repeatedly, and I have met many of the individual plumbers, from Perthshire to Angus, Lancashire and beyond. He refers to my esteemed colleague Richard Harrington, who is no longer in this place. He put forward the Green Paper that looked specifically at this point and applied the full force of Government, and all the consultations on section 75. There were 853 responses, including 70 specific responses to the question regarding legislative changes on employer debt. Regrettably, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the vast majority sought no change to the employer debt position. That is the reason we are in the situation we are in.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House of the work that has been done. I am fully aware of what was discussed in that Green Paper, and I am aware of the responses. I want to come on to some of the longer-term issues, because those were not really addressed in how this was looked at, but that was a decent attempt by the previous Minister to get to the heart of this and pull it together. I encourage the current Minister not to give up and to look again at our amendments—I am going to try to convince him of this; we will see how we get on—because they are modest amendments that would help people who are caught in this nightmare. They are not a total solution, but our new clauses would considerably help those who have been caught up in all this.
New clause 5 would simply permit employers in a pension scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a deferred debt arrangement provided that they meet all the other tests. It would support those who are still trading prior to section 75 being triggered to use the easements before the closure of the scheme to be included. New clause 4 would allow the flexibility to waive a debt in certain circumstances to allow an employer to exit from a pension scheme where the debt is below a de minimis threshold, which the new clause would set at 0.5% of the fund value.
Those are sensible and modest proposals that would not cost the world to enact and would leave the integrity of these pension schemes intact. We know that the Minister is likely to oppose them, but I hope that he has a think about it, and perhaps there are things that he can do in subsequent legislation based on what is proposed. I know that he recognises the difficulty in all this, but he will offer no further easements beyond those already provided for in legislation. He also says that the
“current employer debt system is intended to be equitable to all employers”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 122.]
and insists that schemes must be fully funded, but setting a de minimis write-off at 0.5% will have a negligible impact on any of these arrangements.
There are other multi-employer schemes where there may be issues. It is staggering that there have been so few issues with these multi-employer schemes outside  the plumbers’ pension, but I say to the Minister that this is more of a ticking time-bomb than a sleeping lion. There are consequences to come. Government failure to get this resolved when they had the opportunity with plumbers’ pensions will come back to haunt them at some point in the future. Introducing easements and partial solutions is all very well, but if the central issue remains unaddressed, there will be consequences for everyone involved in these schemes.
I will never forget the meeting when I was first made aware of this issue. I was utterly horrified that this level of debt was stalking plumbers like some sort of malicious apparition. I said to them then that I would do everything possible to ensure that this was addressed. Five years later, we have not been able to do that. It is now all down to the Minister. He can do something to lessen this burden on honest, hard-working men and women, or we can come back here in a few years with this misery still in place and this injustice still not put right. I still hope that he will consider the amendments that we have tabled this evening.

Stephen Doughty: I rise to address a number of issues. First, let me say that I fully support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends—amendment 16 and others—on climate change. With respect to some of the comments that were made earlier, we need much more radical thinking on this if we are to see the types of fundamental shifts that we need in our economy, not just in this country but globally—recognising, of course, that pensions are invested globally—to achieve the kind of action that is needed to deal with the scale of the climate emergency. That will affect the generations to come, just as, if we do not get pensions right, the generations to come will not have the resources they thought they would receive.
I want to focus my remarks on new clause 1 and amendment 14, which show the importance of improved guidance and consumer protections, and the clauses in the Bill that relate to the valuations of pensions schemes. These issues all matter and the protections—many introduced on a cross-party basis—are so crucial because of the scandals and scams that many right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have referred to. A range of measures are needed to clear up the weaknesses in our pensions systems and pensions regulation, which have led to huge injustices.
I want to talk briefly about two injustices that have affected people in my constituency over many years: the Allied Steel and Wire pensioners and the Roadchef employees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on the Front Bench, for their work to support action on these issues, in particular the meeting that we had recently with Allied Steel and Wire pensioners from my constituency. I also thank the Minister, who has been in conversations about this case with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington. I am grateful to him for agreeing to meet us to discuss it further. I hope we can find the time for that in the weeks to come, because it needs to be looked at. It is a historic injustice that has affected many, many people who have waited many years for it to be resolved. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that we need to tackle  all those who try to plunder the pension pots of hard-working employees, which was very much what happened in both cases.
The campaigners and members of the Pensions Action Group, which include many former Allied Steel and Wire employees, have explained clearly—I am sure it has been spoken of many times in this House—how they lost the pensions they put into and expected to receive in retirement. This has affected workers from across the country: not only former workers at the Allied Steel and Wire plant in my constituency, but in locations such as Sheerness in Kent and in other businesses, such as the shelving giant Dexion, which were also hit. Those workers were helped and supported by the financial assistance scheme set up by the Labour Government in the early 2000s. That was followed by the establishment of the Pension Protection Fund, which still exists today to step in to ensure workers’ accrued defined benefit pensions are safeguarded when employers collapse. A fundamental issue, however, is that under the terms of the protection scheme, pension income based on service prior to 1997 is not eligible to be increased in line with inflation, unlike post-1997 service. The pension income of 140,000 workers who built their pension pre-1997 has not been protected from rising consumer prices.
I want to name the individuals who have campaigned resolutely on this issue for many years: John Benson, Phil Jones and many others. Alongside other Members, I have been with them to Downing Street and elsewhere to take their case. Essentially, they have devoted their lives to making steel, making this country great and supporting our infrastructure projects, yet they have been denied dignity in their retirement. Tragically, many are sadly passing away without having received what they were entitled to. They point out, quite rightly, that the type of restrictive legislation that has existed around their circumstances does not apply to, for example, the pensions of Members of Parliament who were elected prior to 1997, many of whom have moved on to the other place. We need to think about justice and equity in all these matters, particularly as we enjoy very generous pension settlements.
Many financial assistance scheme members currently receive only 90% of their restricted pension. That was what was achieved by the scheme and the agreement under the previous Labour Government. Unfortunately, because of the lack of indexation many are seeing their actual income drop below the 50% redress required under Hampshire v. PPF in September 2018. I recently spoke to a number of them and asked them to explain how the situation had affected them and their families. We have heard today of many other such instances, which not only have financial implications but cause emotional and family strain. I want to quote some of their own words, because they bear strong witness to the reality. One worker, who left school in 1961, aged 15, and started working at the steel company, told me, “For some years, the company paid into the pension scheme. I myself in those early years did not contribute, but then the ASW pension scheme was formed.” The workforce were called to the canteen on a number of occasions for meetings with the company’s directors and told of the plan regarding the new pension scheme, which they were told had the backing of the UK Government. The workforce were given all sorts of assurances that “it would secure a comfortable retirement for themselves and their families, and everyone to my knowledge agreed this was the right thing to do.”
We then fast-forward to 2002 when shift teams were called to the conference room and told by one of the receivers that the company would close and they would lose their jobs. One colleague had tears rolling down their face. The receiver told them, “The pensions we had saved and worked for were safe as they were not touching those funds”. One worker said, “I went home after my shift had finished and told my wife I had lost my job but the pension was safe, only to find out days later that there was a shortfall and that we could lose in the region of 85% of the pension. It put me on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and at one point I thought I would go over the edge. After all those years working in heavy industry with noise, dust, fumes and unsociable hours, I have nothing to look forward to.”
Unfortunately, I could recount case after case from Allied Steel and Wire pensioners. It is only a matter of natural justice that, as well as ensuring that such scandals never happen again, as measures in the Bill seek to do —and as much reform since that time has attempted to do, to ensure guidance and protections—we must remember those who did not and will not benefit from these changes. I look forward to discussing that case with the Minister.
Many Members across the House have signed early-day motion 802 on the Roadchef scandal, which has been going on for nearly 30 years and has involved 4,000 low-paid workers who saw millions illegally transferred from their funds and then £10 million taken in taxes. I express my sadness at the recent death of my constituent Tim Warwick, who was the company secretary who exposed the Roadchef shares scandal perpetrated by the former chief executive. I pay tribute to the former Member of Parliament for Monmouth, Huw Edwards, and the GMB trade union—I declare an interest as a member of the GMB—who have campaigned on this issue for many years. Sadly—and as we saw with the Allied Steel and Wire pension scandal—Tim Warwick and others died waiting for clarity from HMRC about what tax they or the trust should be liable for, despite Parliament’s clear intention that such employee benefit schemes should be tax free. Will the Minister therefore give us an update—either in his wind-up, or perhaps he could write to me—on the latest position of the DWP and HMRC on this matter, which has been of great concern to Members across the House? That is one of the injustices that led us to the point of needing to make the types of changes outlined in the Bill and the many amendments to it.
Many of the amendments and proposals put forward are about increasing the transparency, safety and security of our pensions, which we all want to see, as well as tackling scams and injustices in the pensions system. I add my support to the amendments tabled by my colleagues on the Front Bench and by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. In that spirit of tackling injustice, we need to recognise the damage done by robbing people of their life savings and of their and their family’s future. They paid in, they expected to get something out, and they have not. I mentioned two examples, but there are still far too many injustices for many pensioners. I hope that, in a spirit of cross-party working, the Minister and others will continue to try to find justice for all those affected, and particularly those affected by the ASW and Roadchef scandals.

Eleanor Laing: I hope that we can manage the rest of the debate without a formal time limit, because the debate flows better without one. I note that the Minister has been asked to deal with a variety of subjects at the end of the debate. If Members would like the Minister to have time to address their concerns, I implore them to speak for no more than seven or eight minutes. If that is the case, we will manage without a time limit and there will be time for the Minister to respond to the debate.

Duncan Baker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will cut my speech down from the hour or so that I was planning.
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and his powerful and moving speech. It has been a privilege to speak on Second Reading, in the Public Bill Committee and now on Report. It is the first time, as a new MP, that I have seen a Bill through all its stages.
I have always been interested in talking through new topics with my children at bedtime reading. As both my wife and I are exciting accountants, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) for giving me the idea of teaching them about mortality tables as something for us to get our teeth into.
I suppose the real question is how we make pensions relevant to people in their busy lives so that they do not put them off for another year. How do we make them important to people so that they sit up and take notice of them? Well, we do exactly what this Bill is aiming to do. We make them safer, so that crimes against people’s largest financial assets can be punished. Representing an older demographic in North Norfolk, where, often, people’s pension schemes are their largest financial assets, I know that my constituents will certainly be pleased that the regulator now has the teeth to tackle the problems. We make pensions better, as has been said, and the pension dashboard is a move in the right direction. It will really transform us and take us into the 21st century, because we will have the ability to manage something—if we cannot measure something, we cannot manage it, so this is a real step in the right direction.
We also make pensions greener. As I mentioned on Second Reading, we know that if we go in the direction of making pension trustees consider climate change as a material financial risk for member investments, that will help the entire industry as we move towards our net zero obligations. Finally, we have the leadership of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), whose boundless energy and enthusiasm for this Bill has got us to this stage. We should all be commending his efforts to get us here.
I will comment on just a few areas. I recognise why new clause 1 is important. I grew up with the mantra of personal responsibility, which is fairly apt here, because, besides my experience of looking after the company pension scheme in the outside world before I ended up in this place, I always found that advisers were particularly proactive and open and willing to engage with employees about their retirement planning. I think that there are already provisions, information and interventions to outline the options. The Department for Work and  Pensions recently published a policy statement, which included measures on how to take up free and impartial guidance.
I shall be slightly tongue in cheek about new clause 3. I will probably be in trouble for saying this, but whenever the DWP brings in new procedures, the average finance director always feels slightly concerned and thinks, “Oh, no, what have we got to implement now in our businesses?” I remember the quagmire of auto-enrolment. That was met with some dread, but, of course, it turned out to be absolutely the right thing to do, and it has been a monumental success in this country. We got through realtime information, but then when I needed to avoid Making Tax Digital, I had to become an MP.
Seriously, though, in my humble opinion, imposing more procedures and bureaucracy on businesses, especially at the moment, is something that our small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the backbone of this country, can really do without. We do not need further red tape and procedures. The Government are already dealing with this issue of how small pots can be consolidated as part of the further reporting, and I am sure the Minister will make a comment on that in his summing up.
Finally, as the MP for North Norfolk and a member of the Environmental Audit Committee who has since his election to this place, alongside a quintet of Norfolk and Suffolk MPs, pushed to improve the environmentally damaging effects of connecting our wind farms to the national grid, I absolutely have to make a comment on amendments 16 to 24. This is, as we have heard before, a clear case of the theory not delivering on the reality. What we need here is partnership between businesses and pension trustees to invest in green renewable technologies like the wind farms off my coasts in Weybourne, Sheringham and Happisburgh—parts of the country, Madam Deputy Speaker, where I am sure you have holidayed in many times before and will, I hope, again in future—not a set of restrictive governance criteria, which would most likely cause more divestment in green initiatives than a willingness to embrace and comply.
This is a great Bill. It pushes pension governance and transparency, not to mention investment in green initiatives, forward to the next level, and I commend it to the House.

Anna McMorrin: I rise primarily to speak in support of amendments 16 to 24.
The climate crisis remains one of the greatest challenges, if not the greatest challenge, that we face. We are rightly focused at the moment on dealing with the pandemic and the pressures that that entails, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the growing threat of climate breakdown and the risks it continues to pose.
We stand now at the crossroads between complacency and inaction, which locks us potentially into a future of climate chaos, and bold action that combines expertise and resource and can minimise climate risk, help build resilience and jobs for the future, and allow our society to emerge stronger and more equal. We need climate action to be embedded across all sectors of society, but particularly in finance.
No one is immune to the shifting seasons or the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weathers. Droughts or flooding that impact either one community or one continent will inevitably reverberate throughout  the rest of the world, presenting issues of food insecurity and water shortages, and conflict or displacement. It is imperative that legislation going through this House is responsive to that climate crisis, and it must meet our international obligations, including those of the Paris climate agreement and our commitment to limit the global temperatures increase to 1.5° C.
It is crucial, therefore, that the £3 trillion locked into UK pensions today is mobilised to build that green recovery and meet that climate challenge, and to protect the future health of our people and planet and the prosperity that we all want to see and pass on to the next generation.

Guy Opperman: I am listening to the hon. Lady’s speech with great interest, and I am just wondering whether she is aware that the ESG—environmental, social and governance—regulations came into force only eight weeks ago and clause 124 specifically addresses the matters that she is outlining, and more particularly that we published in August specific action on tackling climate risk and improving the governance of occupational pension schemes. That is exactly what the consultation is all about.

Anna McMorrin: I thank the Minister for his intervention, but, frankly, it does not go far enough, which is why I am speaking to these amendments.
The previous speaker, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I was a member of that Committee in the last Parliament, and there was an inquiry into greening finance, chaired by Mary Creagh. We found that the UK’s financial investment chain was structurally incentivised to prioritise short-term profits rather than long-term issues including the climate crisis. That needs to change. Long-term sustainability must be factored into financial decision making, and our report recommended mandatory climate risk reporting and a clarification in law that pension trustees have a duty to consider long-term sustainability, not just short-term returns.
We also emphasised in that report that enforcing those recommendations would push climate change further up boardroom agendas, where it is seriously lacking at the moment. We found through our inquiry that less than half of the 25 largest pension providers discussed climate risk at board level. Their pension schemes, including those of Aviva, Lloyds Bank and HBOS, were all considered to be less engaged than peers among the top 25, so I am particularly pleased to see that Aviva has been instrumental in supporting this amendment.
Disclosure is vital in driving awareness that pensions may be invested in fossil fuel projects, fast fashion, deforestation and extraction. Driving that awareness out there about where their money is going means that people can take control of their pension decisions and make informed choices. Pension funds risk seeing assets become worthless unless they wake up to the climate crisis. The former Governor of the Bank of England and current UN special envoy for climate action, Mark Carney, has said that we must
“align finance with society’s values…This will help deliver the world that our citizens demand and that future generations deserve.”
He said it could be
“the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.”
It is critical that the changes come into effect as early as possible, rather than just 2050 or sooner, if they are to correct the catastrophic trajectory of our climate. We must go further. Amendment 16 would make provision for current and future Governments to significantly strengthen the Bill through secondary legislation. We stand at the brink of climate chaos the likes of which we have yet to experience, but which unfortunately may become all too familiar. If we do not take the necessary action now, I am afraid that we will not get the future our children deserve to see.

Robbie Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and it is good to see so many great contributions from hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. Pensions are a life asset—something that we build up over decades—and getting the policies right and working across parties is vital, so it is fantastic to see such unity and cross-party working on many of the issues contained within the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, the Bill makes our pensions safer, better and greener. I will focus my contribution today on that final point: pension policy becoming greener. Tackling climate change and getting to net zero is undoubtedly one of the country’s biggest challenges, and it is a top priority for me. The clock is ticking, and we all need to take action, from big corporates right down to the actions we take as individuals.
In September, I was delighted to welcome the Pensions Minister to Haworth in my constituency to visit Airedale Springs, a fantastic local manufacturing business in the Worth valley. It supplies mechanical springs to UK manufacturers such as Brompton Bikes. Crucially, it is innovative, and a green business, too. The roof of its factory has more than 100 solar panels, helping to supply its energy needs and power the business, and I want to see firms across our country adopting those kinds of innovative practices.
Our pension funds have trillions of pounds invested in assets under management, and that pension power can help us work towards achieving net zero, because when someone saves money into pensions, the pension provider takes the money and invests it in order to secure a long-term return for retirement. When those savings are in sustainable and ethical investments, such as businesses adopting similar practices to Airedale Springs, the pension can play its part by helping not only with retirement but with climate change.
The changes legislated for through the Bill open up a world of possibilities for our pensions to be invested in new and innovative technologies for the future, such as wind power, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage—technologies that help create jobs and aid the transition towards net zero. The Bill means that for the first time, pension schemes will be able to be required to take the Government’s net zero targets into account, as well as the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
I want to take a moment to address some of the amendments before the House. On amendments 16 to 24, the reality is that the Government are already taking powers that will require trustees to set targets for their management of climate risk. So surely an approach whereby we nudge pensions towards investing in a  sustainable and ethical way is the right approach, and that is the one that the Government are taking. Mandatory targets would, in my view, undermine the duty that pension trustees have to invest in the best interests of the people whose pensions they are investing.
The amendments would also have very little impact on reducing emissions. Pension funds would be forced to sell their high carbon stocks to others who have no regard for environmental concerns, doing absolutely nothing to get us to net zero. Instead, we should work together to nudge firms towards a greener future. We have already seen this in the action that the Government have taken, as well as some corporates. Earlier this year, for example, BP—traditionally an oil and gas company—set its own target for getting to net zero, and many more are doing this too. More than 70% of large pension schemes are already going above and beyond the minimum legal requirements.
We have seen the great work that the Government are doing, such as making ESG regulations and now introducing mandatory climate change reporting. We need to work together in partnership with businesses, not against them, to get to net zero.
In conclusion, it is for those reasons, among many others, that I will support the Government today. I know just how hard the Minister has worked on the Bill, alongside his colleagues, and I thank him for his efforts. Tackling climate change is, of course, of crucial importance and the Bill most certainly marks the next step in our journey to reach net zero.

Alan Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I noticed that he mentioned cross-party working, so on that basis I look forward to him voting with the SNP tonight when we press some of the amendments to a vote. I very much appreciated that early commitment.
I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray)—I have also put my name to them. In January 2018, I introduced a private Member’s Bill on multi-employer pension schemes, including provision for the protection of unincorporated businesses. The Bill was intended to correct what I saw as the unintended consequences of the section 75 amendments, which were legislated in 2005. Like many private Member’s Bills, it did not go anywhere, so tonight I am keeping a promise to the plumbers of my local Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers’ Federation branch. I promised that I would do all I can to try to get legislative changes for a solution to the section 75 debt issue, which has adversely affected the plumbing and mechanical services industry pension scheme.
It is disappointing that nearly three years down the line since I introduced my Bill the reality is that we are no further forward. It is also just over four years since my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) first raised the matter in a Westminster Hall debate. As he pointed out earlier, the then Minister pledged to find a solution to the problem. We are still waiting, despite the argument that there has been some progress over the years. I put on the record my thanks   to SNIPEF and the Plumbing Employers Action Group for their assistance in tweaking the amendments to try to reflect ministerial comments that were made in Committee.
From 1995 until further changes in 2005, the plumbing pension fund was assessed on a minimum funding basis. When it was valued like that, the scheme was deemed fully funded and therefore any employer leaving the scheme did so without detriment to the overall scheme. As we now know, the 2005 changes led to the scheme being assessed on an insurance buy-out basis, which has caused the current issues. Those issues have been exacerbated, because those who left in compliance with the then rules on the old assessment did not accrue or owe any debts, but on the new basis, they have now created liabilities that the remaining employers have to pick up. Even now, the scheme is close to being fully funded if it was still assessed on an ongoing basis, which shows that changes should be possible. Given that the UK Government will not allow a change to the buy-out assessment process, surely we need to look at the modest changes proposed in new clauses 4 and 5.
Nobody is arguing against the principle of ensuring that a pension pot is sustainable. We understand the need to minimise risk to the taxpayer in terms of the Pension Protection Fund having to pick up any slack. However, the stark reality is that unless some amendments to legislation are made, many individuals will be made bankrupt. Surely we have a duty, as legislators, to prevent that. This is individual employers who were doing the right thing for their employees at the time, to ensure that their employees had a healthy pension in their retirement.
Over the years, Ministers have often referred to “easements”. However, statutory easements do not cover all situations—in particular, where an employer has retired or ceased trading or has triggered a section 75 debt prior to the closure of the pension scheme to future accrual. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire said, there is a small group of some 30 retired unincorporated ex-employers for whom no easements have ever applied. They are unable to use a deferred debt arrangement as that is only available for limited companies, and in any event, the scheme closed for future service in June 2019, meaning that the deferred debt arrangements cannot be used by a closed scheme. In addition, having been unincorporated businesses that have now ceased trading, they cannot apportion their debt to another business or person, so they have no easements or recourse available to them at this moment in time.
Due to a failure of notification, this group did not even know that they had debts until it was too late for them. The average debt that this group faces is some £500,000, with the highest being £1.2 million. Nobody benefits if these people are made bankrupt. The reality is that, if they are made bankrupt, the total debts will not be recovered. Critically, the pension fund will not be materially financially stronger even if these individuals are pursued and they lose their homes and are made bankrupt. Such punitive action is in no one’s interest. That is why we want these modest changes to be made.
In Committee, the Minister stated:
“The new clause would be unfair to those employers previously connected with the scheme who have already paid their section 75 debt”.––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 123.]
He also stated that
“the new clause would weaken the protections contained in the current deferred debt arrangement system. We need to balance the needs of the affected employers with the risks to scheme members and other employers.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 122.]
On the face of it, those are reasonable sentiments, but the issue is that so much of this debt—up to 60% of it—is orphan liabilities. There is an inherent unfairness in the way that the debts have been assessed, accumulated and attributed. We need to find solutions, rather than argue about ifs and buts as a way out of doing so. Otherwise, financially strong businesses can still be stuck with a huge, often unpayable debt, which takes a grave personal toll on the individuals involved.
While there are some options for managing or delaying section 75 liabilities available to those currently trading, there is little help available to those who have already retired. Our new clauses try to strike the right balance. The adjustments proposed in the revised new clause 4 are designed to narrow the focus of the amendments proposed in Committee to make it clearer what factors pension scheme trustees or managers should take into account when considering the application of de minimis discretion, and to make it clear that de minimis discretion should not be to the detriment of the pension scheme overall. That hopefully addresses some of the Minister’s concerns about fairness.
The Minister said that 0.5% in itself might be a small threshold, but there is concern about the cumulative effect of a number of 0.5% disregards. We need to stop finding reasons not to do something. The additional stipulations in new clause 4 should give added comfort in that regard, particularly the non-detriment aspect of the overall scheme.
New clause 5 would permit employers in a pension scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a deferred debt arrangement providing that they meet the other statutory tests. This would allow a deferred debt arrangement to be put in place where an employer triggered section 75 before scheme closure but did not have a DDA in place. Although the trigger for the deferred debt arrangement happened pre-closure, the employer must still meet the statutory test for a DDA; in other words, an employer must still be trading and have an ongoing contractual commitment to the scheme. This is needed to support employers who are still trading and otherwise trapped and forced to continue trading, unable to sell on or transfer ownership of the company.
I say to the Minister that we need to remember that some people are literally working themselves to death, unable to retire. I have constituents who are unable to stop working because of the section 75 debt and liability that hangs over them. A couple of years ago, a medium-sized company in my constituency stopped trading, but it is a safe bet that the individual who is the owner of that company still has a section 75 debt issue remaining. Action is required. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire said, it would be great if we could just make some progress tonight and if the Government supported these modest amendments. Just think of the relief that this could bring to many individuals. If the Government are not willing to do that, I look forward to hearing what their solution is instead.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful to be called and to have the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who made several important points.
The Bill seeks to introduce a number of measures aimed at protecting savings and providing simpler oversight of pension savings. This includes the introduction of pension dashboards, collective defined contribution schemes and new powers for the Pensions Regulator to tackle irresponsible management of private pension schemes. These are important steps forward and they are long overdue. In particular, I welcome the strengthening of consumer protections against scams, as I know many examples of residents in Newport West who have been victims of these scams and have not only lost so much money, but been deeply affected by the scams for years after the event.
I am delighted that many of my noble Friends in the other place were able to secure some important amendments to the Bill—in particular, the amendments that require trustees and managers to take into account the Paris agreement and key domestic climate targets in their overall governance and disclosure of climate change risk and opportunities. This is the first time that climate change has featured in domestic pensions legislation and that is to be welcomed.
I urge Ministers and Government Back Benchers to support Labour’s efforts to mobilise billions of pounds towards the vital and timely effort to tackle climate change through pension funds. Given that Ministers refuse to support the amendment in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), on asking pension funds to develop strategies to help to meet our obligations under the Paris agreement, I hope that we will receive an explanation of how they expect to achieve their goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner.
The other place also forced the Government to amend the Bill to guarantee a publicly owned pensions dashboard free at the point of use and available to everyone. I have called for that before, as has the shadow Minister, and it is a demand that many residents from across Newport West have raised with me in recent weeks and months. The changes contained in the amendment would ensure that consumers are protected and that they do not make poorly informed or hasty decisions when they see their pension information for the first time. I hope that the Minister will welcome that amendment.
Finally, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who spoke earlier. He has worked hard on these issues and is a man of wisdom and experience. I support his new clause 1, which would set up opt-out appointments with Pension Wise for pension scheme members five years prior to their retirement date, because this is a point at which scheme members are so vulnerable to transfer advice that is not in their best interest or to tax scams. This is so important for the people who need sound guidance and advice before they take their pensions.
The Bill is to be broadly welcomed and I urge Ministers to accept all efforts to make it stronger, more effective and long-lasting.

Richard Thomson: I rise to support amendments 7 and 8 and new clauses 4 and 5 in my name and those of others. A recurring theme throughout  the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and this evening has been the need to try to avoid unintended consequences. That is a particularly important mindset to approach this with given that the consequences of all that we are putting into legislation this evening will potentially last for decades, and the decisions that we take will affect people’s quality of life and financial opportunities in retirement. It is worth bearing that in mind when approaching the Bill, and when we consider any well-meaning assurances that we might get from the Government Front Bench in lieu of the actual substantive changes that have been asked for in the amendments and new clauses.
There are three issues in particular that I will return to, the first of which relates to amendment 8 and dashboards, which I think are a fine innovation. We know the difficulty sometimes of keeping track of pensions that are accumulated over a lifetime, particularly when that working lifetime is no longer spent in just a few jobs, and someone picks up several pensions over a career. Dashboards can collate information that is informative and impartial. If, however, that information is provided in circumstances where there is a commercial interest before the system is bedded in, it creates the risk of needless policy churn. Such churn might be in the interests of advisers, and perhaps even of some providers, but it is unlikely to be in the interests of the policy holders and consumers. The potential for mis-selling under those circumstances is, or ought to be, obvious, and is surely antithetical to the objective of bringing in dashboards.
The second point that I wish to return to is on amendment 7 and defined-benefit schemes. The point has been made by many speakers throughout the passage of the Bill, and by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, that defined-benefit schemes, which remain open to new members, require a very different investment approach from those schemes that are closed to new members or that are not near to maturity. There have been contradictory messages, I am sorry to say, from the Pensions Regulator on the consultation when it comes to alleged de-risking and whether a class of beneficiaries from defined-benefit pension schemes should have their interests prioritised over those of others. To our mind, there is no good reason not to put in the Bill a suitable steer from the Minister about the need for a different approach for schemes that are open, but I suspect that he is reluctant to do so. I therefore seek an early assurance in his summing up that, although it may not be in the Bill, he will give a prompt direction to that effect at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, on new clauses 4 and 5 and the plumbers’ pension scheme, I am also a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for plumbers’ pensions. We have heard eloquent testimony from my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) about the impact that this issue is having on many plumbers who have sought only to do the right thing through their businesses, and provide for their employees.
I know that the Minister is not unsympathetic to the plight of those who find themselves on the wrong end of a section 75 debt under these circumstances. I certainly  take the view that those who are on the wrong end of that section 75 debt have been very poorly served at various points by the advice and guidance that they have been given and the way that the scheme has been managed. Although we clearly do not want to create adverse unintended consequences in other schemes, it is worth bearing in mind that this particular scheme has a section 75 debt of £7.5 million, in the context of a scheme that is fully funded and has £2.2 billion at its back. That debt could be waived by the trustees, if they were allowed to, at no detriment to the remaining members.
In seeking to resolve these unique circumstances, we have spoken about extending the deferred debt, in new clause 5. Also, proposed new sub-paragraph (h)(i) of regulation 2, in subsection (2)(b) of new clause 4, would ensure that the scope of any write-off is restricted to those who would have incurred the liability for a section 75 debt before the passing of that amendment, which would effectively put a firewall around the adverse consequences and moral hazard of seeking to apply it to other schemes where the circumstances do not justify doing so.
In conclusion, to do nothing about this would be a missed opportunity. If the Minister is not minded to accept these amendments this evening, I very much hope he will use his undoubted knowledge and ingenuity to help find a solution that can help to bring this nightmare to an end for the plumbers and their families, who have done absolutely nothing other than try to do their best and the most responsible thing by those they employed.

Neil Gray: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), whose helpful, informed and persuasive speech matched the characteristics he brought to the Committee stage in support of the work we did there—I thank him for his efforts.
As I said on Second Reading, we broadly support the Bill, but it could do with some sprucing up in certain areas. Sadly, we did not get far in Committee; in fact, the Bill took a step backwards from some of the good work that had been done in the other place, particularly on a lead-in for commercial dashboards and dashboard financial transactions—that was taken away—as well as on the measures providing reassurances to those involved in open DB schemes.
I will turn to those shortly, but first let me deal with new clause 1, which stands in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and has been signed by Members on both sides of the House, including me. I concur with what he said in setting out the reasons why this is so important. I also agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) in supporting the new clause. I am particularly concerned about this area, not least following my work on the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, which brought MaPS into existence. We held serious concerns that the guidance elements that were supposed to be partnering pension freedoms were not strong enough then and we still hold those now.
I touched on this in Committee, but it is worth repeating for colleagues who may be havering on which way to vote that the Government’s opposition to this new clause appears to be based on the work the Financial Conduct Authority is doing and the idea of providing a stronger nudge—we have heard about that—to people  getting guidance as they near retirement age. Unfortunately, I am yet to be convinced that any of that does what new clause 1 would do, which would see the DWP writing to pension scheme members, or their survivors five years prior to their reaching the age of eligibility with a scheduled time and date for a pensions guidance appointment. Ministers would then have to write annually to that person until that appointment was taken up, or their desire to opt out was confirmed. That is far more robust than what exists at present and seems to deliver a much stronger possibility of someone taking the appointment than the stronger nudge trials have evidenced. It is worth repeating the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham in his strong speech, which cited the MaPS stronger nudge trials and showed that there was only a very small increase in the number of people who went on to have that Pension Wise appointment. The DWP claimed that it significantly increased the uptake of Pension Wise guidance but, as I said in Committee, that is pure spin. The outcome of the stronger nudge trials—

Guy Opperman: I just want to correct one point, which I was going to try to deal with in more detail later. The claim has repeatedly been made that this is “spin”, but if one studies the stronger nudge behavioural trial, one sees that more than a quarter of the people who contacted their provider in the trial had already received pension advice or guidance in the last year and therefore were excluded from the sample. So this cannot be seen in the context of a simple figure that keeps being restated, as the hon. Gentleman has just done.

Neil Gray: The fact remains, and the Minister has not rebuked the point I made in Committee, that the stronger nudge managed to get successful appointments to move from 3% to 11% of cases. That is not a significant improvement. A stronger nudge is just not going to be enough, which is why we argued during the passage of the 2018 Act for an opt-out guidance system. Now we are back to looking at this again. We still support that approach and new clause 1 would deliver it.
Colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Gordon and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), have passionately and eruditely explained why we have given such a focus to the so-called plumbers’ pension amendments in new clauses 4 and 5. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the compelling arguments that my colleagues have made, but he should be reminded that these new clauses were arrived at with the support of campaigners who feel that the current legislation does not protect them. After hearing what my hon. Friends have said about the impact this has had over many years on their constituents—and presumably after some lobbying from across the House, because at least 30 colleagues have constituents who are impacted, including, according to the campaigners, the hon. Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) and the Secretary of State for Scotland—the Minister must surely be eager to do something.
Before the Minister speaks, I wish to point him to the correspondence he should have received last week from the director of Plumbing Employers Action Group Ltd.,  which should allay his fears about new clause 4 setting a precedent, or about passing on liabilities to other employers, as has already been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. It is worth remembering, through all this, that these plumbers have found themselves in this situation through no fault of their own, but because of a lack of information from trustees regarding their potential section 75 obligations. I hope that new clauses 4 and 5 can be accepted to ensure that nobody falls into bankruptcy and poverty through no fault of their own.
Our new clause 2 would help the UK Government in three areas. It would establish an independent advisory commission to look at the terms of this legislation. The Minister knows that it has been a long-term SNP policy to see an independent pensions and savings commission established. The scope of the Bill does not allow us to go that far, but this advisory commission could eventually become the standing commission we wish to see and a sounding board for long-term pensions and savings policy. It would ensure, for instance, that we never saw a repeat of the WASPI scandal.
In the meantime, new clause 2 would also allow the UK Government out of the bind that they find themselves in over commercial dashboards and financial transactions. We believe, as do many stakeholders in the industry, that the rush to see commercial dashboards with financial transactions could be extremely damaging. The hon. Member for Amber Valley has highlighted that risk.
The Minister has previously suggested that commercial dashboards are necessary to allow the independent public dashboard—the MaPS dashboard—to work, but that can only be the case if a deal has been done with the sector to allow commercial dashboards with transactional ability in exchange for the data that the providers have for the public dashboard. The Government could quite easily mandate that data to be provided without the incentive of early commercial dashboards and the risks of financial transactions. Time is the wisest counsellor of all, which is why I do not understand the Government’s determination to plough on without taking stock, without analysing the risks and without ensuring that savers do not suffer detriment from shifting so quickly to commercial dashboards and financial transactions.
We want to see the MaPS dashboard established quickly to provide impartial and reliable information for savers, and that is why we have brought back amendment 8 to reinsert the wording from the Lords that was removed in Committee. This has cross-party backing and backing from stakeholders. The public dashboard has the ability and the potential to be as revolutionary for pensions and savings as auto-enrolment has been, but that can only be the case if the Government get behind it and give it the space to develop. Also, the commission could help with what Members on all sides repeatedly turned to in Committee—namely, finding cross-party consensus on long-term pensions policy. This could be a safe space for those discussions and ensure that pensions policy stood the test of time, because there would be buy-in from all sides.
Our amendment 7 deals with open DB schemes. We have worked extensively with other parties to try to find a form of words to give the scheme providers comfort that they were not going to be forced into making  investment decisions that were inappropriate for them. The importance of this has already been highlighted by the hon. Members for North East Fife and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) , as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. There is a major concern that open DB schemes will need to de-risk, and there are potentially serious implications for them of doing so. In Committee, the Minister stated in response to one of my lines of questioning:
“I want to make it clear again—I have said it once, but I will say it again—that the Government are not proposing to introduce a one-size-fits-all funding standard”.––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 81.]
However, the CBI has contradicted him by saying:
“The regulator’s proposals risk moving back to one-size-fits-all regulation…Businesses and trustees need to be confident that the new code will allow them to make decisions that benefit savers and the long-term health of companies.”
The Minister protested strongly about the Government’s intentions; it may not be their intention to introduce one-size-fits-all regulation, but the Minister is reckoning without the law of unintended consequences. In order to be sure, why not allow a safeguard to be on the face of the Bill to protect against the unintended consequences, identified by the CBI and others, which could otherwise see perfectly healthy DB schemes close down?

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman is making a point that a number of us made earlier. I notice that in the Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman served, the Minister responded pretty clearly by saying:
“Open schemes with a strong sponsoring employer that are immature and have managed their risk appropriately should not be forced into an inappropriate de-risking journey.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 80.]
I found that quite reassuring; what does the hon. Gentleman think?

Neil Gray: I was just coming on to quote that very passage from the Minister in Committee—

Guy Opperman: Of course!

Neil Gray: I was—I have it right here. We took some comfort from that statement from the Minister, but I have to emphasise the word “inappropriate” in respect of that de-risking journey. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that unless schemes started to move towards significant maturity, there would not be any appropriate de-risking journey? Will the Minister further confirm that he has no intention of insisting that all open schemes progressively de-risk their investments if any remain sufficiently far from significant maturity, and that he will ensure that the regulations do not have that effect? If so, how will they ensure that? We also ask the Minister to accept amendment 7, but if that does not happen, we will support the Liberal Democrat amendment 1.
On amendments 9 and 10, we return to the treatment of vulnerable customers and the need to better define the difference between guidance, advice and information. We touched on this in Committee and the Minister accepted the principle of where we were coming from with our amendments but could not accept them into the Bill. I ask him to look at that again. The SNP have tabled amendments to require that specially trained  advisers and guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances, including but not limited to persons who suffer long-term sickness or disability, carers, persons on low incomes and recipients of benefits. Circumstances of those types can have a significant impact on people’s finances and long-term savings plans. It is also the case that people in difficult financial circumstances may be more likely to utilise new pension freedoms, but at a cost to their long-term savings.
It is clear that the UK Government had not put in place adequate safeguards to ensure that older people who opt to free up their funds would not end up in a desperate financial situation later. Those with less money are more vulnerable to economic shocks in their personal finances, as well as being potentially more vulnerable to scammers who give misleading or false advice for free. That is why we have re-tabled amendment 10 to ensure that customers who use the pensions dashboard are made more aware of the difference between information, guidance and advice, which are very different things. People who expect advice as to what route they may be able to take may be disappointed to receive only various pieces of information. Likewise, there may be issues with exactly what the body is allowed to advise and to what extent it is able to advise on the options available. It is a simple amendment but would be extremely helpful in taking the issue forward.
As on all these issues, we have tabled amendments in good faith to try to improve the legislation. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in his response to the debate.

Jonathan Reynolds: I place on record my thanks to all Members who participated today and in Committee. In particular, I thank my shadow Work and Pensions team for their diligence and hard work. I also place on record our thanks to the Minister and our colleagues from the SNP for the open dialogue that has been maintained throughout the Bill’s passage.
The Opposition did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading, and it is not our intention to vote against Third Reading later. We agree with the broad aims of the Bill and believe that it adds a series of worthwhile improvements to our pension system. However, we have continually sought, as is the role of the Opposition, to improve the Bill further to make it the best legislation that it can possibly be. On Second Reading, I laid out how we wanted to achieve this, with additional measures to protect pensions, people and the planet. Although there was thoughtful debate in Committee, it is disappointing that the Government removed some critical parts of the improvements that were made in the Lords. That is why we have brought back two groups of amendments today, as well as seeking a new amendment, which is an opportunity to make a historic step forward in tackling climate change. I will address each in turn.
First, on protecting pensions, a well-regulated pensions system is vital to give people confidence that it will be there for them in their retirement. Pension funds are not just any financial product. They are usually the sole means of looking after someone in old age, and are responsible for their financial security for an entire phase of their life. Today’s retirement landscape is challenging. The Labour party does not oppose the pensions industry in finding new ways to meet those challenges, but we strongly believe that any innovation must be well regulated, which is why we have introduced new clause 6. We  introduced that provision in Committee, to ask the Government to introduce proper regulation of so-called pensions superfunds, which are profit-making consolidation vehicles for defined-benefit pension schemes. At present, they are subject only to an interim regulatory regime announced by the Pensions Regulator in the summer.
That is a substantial change, as these funds currently advertise high rates of return to pension investors. We believe that, as a minimum, those products need a proper and robust regulatory regime, underpinned by legislation, that is on a level playing field with the rest of the industry. We are not a lone voice on that. The Governor of the Bank of England has written to the Secretary of State to raise concerns about the potential risk to financial stability and to scheme members. The Opposition would like to hear a commitment today from the Minister that legislation for a full regulatory regime will be forthcoming before the market begins to develop seriously.
Moving on to other matters, the adequate funding of defined-benefit schemes is critical to their future. We were disappointed by the removal in Committee of clause 123, which related to the funding requirements of open and closed defined-benefit schemes. That point has just been made, and I shall not quote the Minister directly again. However, we understand that he has relied frequently on the regulator’s bespoke option in the draft defined-benefit funding code to provide reassurance for open schemes that they will not be required to follow the funding and investment strategies of closed schemes. However, there is a long list of people who have expressed doubt about that option, and who believe that it risks the premature closure of otherwise healthy schemes, including the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, Lane Clark & Peacock, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, and even one of the Minister’s predecessors as pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann. I recognise that there is no disagreement between the Minister and Opposition parties on the desired outcome, but we still believe that there is virtue in reintroducing the clause. If amendment 7 or amendment 1 is pressed to a vote, that will be done with our support.
Protecting people in schemes is vital, which is why we have introduced three changes, to try to strengthen the consumer protections in the Bill, with amendments 11 to 15. We all agree that the pensions dashboard, when it arrives, will be an incredible opportunity for people to see all their pensions information in one place for the first time, but safeguards must be built in to prevent hasty decision making and consumer exploitation. The last thing we want is for people to make bad choices, prompted, for example, by market disruptions or unscrupulous operators, until they are more accustomed to that level of access. We believe that we can tackle both those things by giving the public dashboard a protected head start and keeping commercial transactions off the dashboard until further legislation is introduced in line with our amendments.
We also believe that there must be accessible and transparent fee information on the dashboard. For  too long, it has been possible to rely on the opacity  and complexity of pensions to obscure the real lifetime cost of transactions. Greater transparency would surely be welcome.
I spoke on Second Reading about the scourge of pension scams. People can become particularly vulnerable to scams in the years immediately before retirement. We have heard throughout the debates on the Bill terrible stories, such as the one articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), about people falling victim to fraudsters who rely on confusion about pension freedoms, and not only take people’s lifetime savings but leave them with a huge tax liability. No punishment is severe enough for those who commit those crimes. We all agree that further action is needed, so we support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, as they would create an opt-out system for speaking with Pension Wise in the five years before retirement.
Finally, I have spoken about protecting pensions and protecting people, and now I want to talk about protecting the planet. Our colleagues in the Lords worked hard with the Government to bring in requirements in the Bill on the assessment and disclosure of climate risk in pension investments. This is a historic step: the first time it has ever been included in UK pensions legislation, and we all should and do celebrate that fact. However, we know that, with the climate emergency getting  even more serious, it is possible to go even further. Amendment 16 would allow regulators to mandate occupational schemes to develop a clear investment strategy that is aligned with net zero greenhouse gas emissions at the pace the science demands.
The Paris agreement of 2016, which committed to efforts to limit global warming to 1.5° was a groundbreaking and critical step forward in global co-operation to beat climate change, but I believe we do not do enough to explain to the public and our constituents that the changes we need will only be delivered by starting to influence how vast amounts of private capital are allocated, alongside direct Government decisions on, for instance, decarbonising power and transport. I have to say that I would have thought that argument would garner more sympathy with Conservative Members of Parliament.
UK pension funds represent trillions of pounds, and steering more of that towards our climate goals, yes, would be radical, but this amendment is not just about where capital is allocated. It is about the stewardship that we need to see from all asset managers over the companies they have investments in. This is not a divestment amendment, nor does it limit the choices available to fund managers. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) said that the ESG data is patchy, and he is right, but he will appreciate that asset managers demanding better data have been a fundamentally important driver in making that better, and the E—environmental—is actually the most robust part of ESG data. It does not make sense to me to say that the data exists for the Government to issue a green bond, but not for a pension fund to formulate a Paris investment strategy.
We, as the Opposition, ask the Government to deliver a green economic recovery from the pandemic by investing to support the creation of at least 400,000 new jobs, but achieving progress on climate change demands change in every part of our economy, and despite what we have heard from Government Members today, the industry  is already showing us what is possible. Aviva, one of the UK’s biggest pension providers—it supports this amendment —has recently announced that its auto-enrolment default funds will aim to achieve net zero by 2050. That is £32 billion of capital, which is actually going beyond the scope of this amendment. In October this year, the BT Pension Scheme set a goal of net zero by 2035 for its entire portfolio, worth £55 billion. There is also a great deal of good practice in public sector DB schemes, such as the Local Government Pension Scheme.
What is more, today’s amendment was developed and backed by a whole host of organisations across the public and private sectors, with dozens reiterating their support in a letter to the Prime Minister last week. These include ClientEarth, Make My Money Matter, ShareAction, E3G, Christian Aid, West Yorkshire Pension Fund, Good Energy, Ecotricity, the Aldersgate Group, the Climate Coalition, the Carbon Tracker Initiative, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Business in the Community and the TUC. I would like to thank all those organisations for the work they have done in getting us to this point. However, I will also say to the Minister that this is not a top-down initiative. The evidence shows that Members themselves want their funds to start taking this seriously.
In addition, the investment case makes this simply the right thing to do. The Department for Work and Pensions has itself acknowledged that considering the financial impacts of climate change is consistent with fiduciary duty. Pension funds are long-term stewards of capital. What could be more long term than the sustainability of our environment and our economy? These two objectives simply do not conflict. As is said in an excellent comment piece in The Daily Telegraph today—that in itself is a sign of the times—it
“now looks irrefutable that environmental and social factors are a clear guide to company quality and future investment returns.”
I reiterate that this is not about the Government dictating to pension funds about when and who to invest their money in, and we are not seeking to compromise trustee independence. It is simply about putting a strategy in place that considers their role in meeting our climate objectives. Trustees can maintain their total discretion over what strategy they choose to achieve that goal. Furthermore, this proposal is designed to allow the Government the flexibility to guide schemes via regulations to ensure that trustees have a strategic plan to become Paris aligned over a period of time. Any measures resulting from this amendment would be subject to extensive consultation with market participants, so that their design could take into account what works best for schemes of different types and sizes. This is written to be as accommodating as possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House last week and outlined his ambitions to make the UK a leader in green finance. It is true that we have been lagging behind our European counterparts for many years when it comes to green bonds. As the shadow Economic Secretary in the last Parliament, I made that point frequently, and I was often given reasons why we could not do that similar to those we have heard today against amendment 16. I am tempted to say that if we wait until the end of this Parliament, even this amendment may well become Government policy.
With the new US Administration poised to rejoin the Paris agreement in 2021 under the new leadership of President-elect Joe Biden, I put it to the House that we  can make this an even more historic week for tackling climate change by passing amendment 16 today. That is why we seek to include it in the Bill.

Guy Opperman: This is a hugely important piece of legislation. It is a landmark Bill. It will impact the lives of millions of people across this country and it will make our pensions safer, better and greener. I genuinely believe that the work we are doing on CDCs and the pensions dashboard, the fact that we are giving real powers to the regulator and taking the opportunity to crack down on the callous crooks who take our constituents’ pensions, the work we are doing on scams, and the fact that we have for the first time put climate change at the heart of pensions means that this will be groundbreaking legislation that we should all be proud of. I welcome the cross-party support that we have heard.
I may not be able to address all 30 amendments or the 17 separate requests for clarification, so I refer all colleagues—and those in the other place, when they consider this matter—to the two days of debate in Committee, where I expanded in great detail on many of these issues. I will happily write to individuals who asked me to address particular points. I will of course meet the ASW, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) requested, and write on the Roadchef issue, but I cannot promise anything more than previous Ministers have done.
Regretfully, I will not engage with the WASPI debate, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made clear that he would. I continue to defend this Government’s position, as I defend the Government of the two former Labour Pensions Ministers sitting on the Back Benches, who supported the exact same policy during the Labour Government. I very much take forward all the work that is done on a cross-party basis. I put on the record my thanks to the Clerks, to all colleagues who have spoken in this debate and to colleagues from across the House for their work in Committee, which was of great assistance to the House.
I turn first to clause 123 and the various amendments on open DB that were raised by a variety of colleagues. We have made it entirely clear that we do not want to see good schemes close. We support DB and we are not proposing a one-size-fits-all regime that forces immature schemes with strong sponsors into an inappropriate de-risking journey. We have also made it clear that we will use secondary legislation to ensure that the requirement for all schemes to have a funding and investment strategy works appropriately for open schemes and ensures that immature open schemes are not prevented from taking appropriate investment risks where that is supportable.
As we have explained, it would be wrong for all schemes that are expected to stay open to be treated differently from other schemes. Not all open schemes in this category share the same characteristics. Some will be maturing just like closed schemes, and it would be wrong to treat such schemes for all purposes as if they were the same as immature schemes.
We hope that we have provided reassurance that open schemes will be able to adopt funding and investment strategies that are appropriate to their individual circumstances. The regime will remain scheme specific and will continue to apply flexibly to the individual circumstances of each scheme, including those that remain open to new members.
We have made it entirely clear that we will frame our secondary legislation in such a way that schemes that are and are expected to remain immature, and have a strong employer covenant, continue to be able to invest in a substantial proportion of return-seeking assets, which will help to keep costs down. I have engaged with a range of parties—I met a number of them in detail on 2 October, and I have subsequently had discussions with a number of organisations—and we are trying to reassure them of the way ahead.
The Pensions Regulator is a regulator, not a legislator. It must regulate in accordance with the legislation made by Parliament, but we believe that the right way forward is a combination of primary legislation, regulations and the defined-benefit funding code, whereby we will seek to effectively balance employer affordability and member security, taking into account the circumstances of different types of schemes as is appropriate.

Neil Gray: Nothing that the Minister has said contradicts anything in our amendment 7 or, for that matter, our amendment 1. It would not be the first time if the regulations did not necessarily live up to the promises made in the passage of the primary legislation, so why not just accept amendment 7 or, indeed, amendment 1 so that the commitment is in the Bill?

Guy Opperman: I assure the House that no Minister in my position could accept amendment 1, which was proposed by the House of Lords and has been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).
No Government could commit to ensuring that contributions remained affordable or that scheme closures were not accelerated. We cannot be bound to ensure that all schemes that are expected to remain open are treated differently from other schemes, as open schemes in that category do not all share the same characteristics. As I have made clear, some such schemes will be maturing, just like closed schemes; the potential for abuse would open up. A closed scheme could reopen to very small numbers of new members, circumvent safeguards and pursue a riskier investment strategy that would otherwise be inappropriate. We do not want good schemes to close unnecessarily or to introduce a one-size-fits-all regime. I refer briefly to the Pensions Regulator’s comments in paragraph 475 of the consultation:
“We acknowledge that if such schemes do continue to admit new entrants and do not mature then the scheme will not actually reach significant maturity. We are content that such a scheme retains the same flexibility in its funding and investment strategies that all immature schemes have.”
Similar comments are made later, and I refer hon. Members to the statements I made at great length in Committee.
I turn now to amendments 2 to 5. I dealt briefly with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chair of the Select Committee about clause 125 and the work we have done. Let me be clear that that clause will ensure that transfers will not go ahead if the conditions set out in the regulations are not met. Those conditions can relate to the destination of a transfer, so that transfers can be prevented to schemes that do not have the right authorisations or if a member has not supplied the evidence of employment or residency, for example.
Importantly, those conditions can also include other red flags, such as who else is involved in the transfer. If those red flags are apparent, the regulations will enable  trustees to refuse to transfer if the red flag is significant or to direct the member to guidance or information that they must take prior to being allowed to transfer. Trustees will also need to undertake due diligence to establish whether those conditions are met.
Clause 125 puts trustees in the driving seat in relation to permitting transfers to proceed. I make it clear that we will continue to work with the Work and Pensions Committee, the Treasury Committee, the various advisory groups and the all-party parliamentary group on pension scams, with whose members I have had detailed meetings in the past month, to ensure how we can have the best possible regulations to determine circumstances in which different conditions for transfers might apply.
I now move on to the dashboard amendments. I welcome the support in the House for the dashboard; I am particularly grateful to the various contributions that made it clear that this part of the legislation is absolutely transformational, bringing pensions information into the 21st century. I accept entirely what was made clear by the hon. Member for Wallasey: this is a huge project, involving tens of thousands of schemes that will need to be brought forward. The first dashboard will have a “find and view” capability only. At an appropriate time in the future, dashboards may act as a safe space for supporting and safeguarding financial transactions. That will be fully considered and informed by user testing and safeguards, and protections would continue to apply.
However, I resist the amendments in respect of transactions. We have discussed at great length the likelihood of the need for individuals to have a greater say on their pensions. Why would we seek to exclude consolidation going forward? Transactions are not clearly defined in the amendments; they could prevent dashboards from providing useful modelling tools that could inform people of the potential benefits of increasing their contributions. As I made clear to colleagues making the case for the amendments, the consumer association Which? has come out comprehensively against them. It states in its submission on Second Reading:
“we do not agree that the introduction of commercial dashboards should be delayed, or that the transactions should be banned.”
It then goes into more detail:
“there is a need to protect consumers from the risk of commercial dashboards…However, this must be done via the introduction of consumer protections and regulatory oversight rather than a blanket ban.”
The point is also made strongly that the Opposition amendments risk us being left with a dashboard that does not do as much as initially anticipated, resulting in consumers not being as engaged. That could represent a huge missed opportunity. It is crucial that dashboards are both safe and fully functioning to give consumers the most choice and the most exposure to innovation. Therefore, with respect, I will resist the dashboard amendments.
Clause 118 of the Bill, and the FCA regulated activity, will enable the creation of both regulations and FCA rules, which could include signposting to MaPS guidance. The pensions dashboards programme usability working group will explore how best to help users understand the information presented to them and where they can get more help.
In respect of costs and charges, I raised that in great detail in Committee, but colleagues will be aware that the Government intend, and have legislated, that costs and charges should be part of dashboards in the future, just like they will be in the simpler statement. That is legislated for in clause 119(2), and it is appropriate that we proceed with that only once the dashboard delivery group has consulted in a proper way.
As to the restrictions on multiple dashboards for one year, I made the point in Committee that in creating dashboards we need to go where the consumer is rather than forcing the consumer to come to us. That surely is the essence of this issue: it will increase engagement with pensions, and we should reach people where they are. We should not seek to constrain options available but ensure that all opportunities are properly regulated, safe to use and secure.
I turn to the amendments to clause 124—the climate change clause—tabled by the Labour Front Benchers. I am afraid the reality is that Labour’s proposals would direct investment, breach fiduciary duties and lead to divestment and negative outcomes. We want the transformation of the United Kingdom economy and the retrofitting of the country to happen in a partnership with business, legislators, pension schemes and citizens, but I am afraid the amendment would negatively affect that. It would be entirely the wrong way forward.
Labour’s proposal is roundly criticised by the PLSA in a letter in which it strongly endorsed and advocated the Government’s proposals to ensure that the appropriate governance frameworks are in place to support schemes investing in a climate-aware way. It expressed deep concern about the Opposition amendment. With the PLSA’s permission, I will put its letter of 12 November in the House of Commons Library. Likewise, I will put in the Library a letter dated 13 November 2020 from the independent Association of Pension Lawyers, which also massively opposes that proposal. The reality is, the Government are already taking powers to require trustees to set targets in relation to their management of climate risk. We consulted on the use of those powers in August. Our consultation, “Taking action on climate risk”—I note, interestingly, that Labour Front Benchers did not respond to the consultation; I question whether they have even read it—sets them out in great detail.
This is the factual reality: we are already doing what is in the key parts of the amendment in clause 124 as introduced in the House of Lords. In the space of two years, the DWP has made regulations on environmental, social and governance criteria, on stewardship investment and now, in clause 124, on mandatory climate change governance and reporting. We need to allow our proposed policy measures to take effect before reviewing their impact and contemplating further measures. Of the 50 large pension schemes I wrote to last year, 70% are going well beyond the minimum legal requirements. Many have gone considerably further in the past 12 months, as nudged and persuaded by the Government. Fiduciaries do not need such a blunt measure in order to act, so we strongly reject the amendment.
I will turn now to the new clauses, and I will address them in some detail to the best of my ability. I will, if I may, deal with the relatively easy ones. I entirely endorse the view that this Government must bring forward legislation in respect of superfunds in the fullness of   time. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) will understand that that would be a substantial piece of legislation—certainly a 50-clause Bill and possibly more. I entirely accept that further work must be done in this Parliament on automatic enrolment, but I cannot accept new clause 3 or new clause 6.
In respect of the submissions in relation to plumbers’ pensions, I have met a number of the individuals concerned and I completely understand and sympathise with the difficulty that they have been through. New clause 4 is a proposal not to collect debt below the 0.5% threshold. It would mean that every time it was applied, the employer covenant would be weakened, potentially—I accept the word is potentially—increasing the risk that thousands of members would not get their benefits in full.
However, the crucial point is surely this: the current legislation already provides a discretion for trustees not to pursue employers’ debts if they decide that it would be too costly or too lengthy to seek a recovery. Trustees also have the flexibility to collect reduced employer debts without compromising their Pension Protection Fund backing if they are funded above a section 179 basis, but, with no disrespect to the proponents of these measures, this is a decision ultimately for the trustees to take and it is the trustees who need to look at themselves to consider whether they wished to pursue this debt—

Alan Brown: One of the issues is that trustees have a legal duty in terms of the trust. At least this amendment would make it much easier for the trustees to implement not chasing up the debt. If somebody has a debt of £1.2 million, who defines what is too costly for the trustees to decide to chase that debt? That is part of the issue.

Guy Opperman: With no disrespect, that is a matter for the trustees. The hon. Gentleman can make the case to the trustees as to whether it would be too costly or too lengthy to receive a recovery.
In respect of new clause 5, the deferred debt arrangements were introduced as an easement to help employers struggling to manage their section 75 debts in an open non-associated multi-employer scheme. The new clause, I am afraid, offers only a temporary respite at best. The debt would still exist and would have to be paid in the future. The employer would have to pay potentially a larger section 75 debt in future if the scheme’s funding position declined further. The employer would also remain liable for deficit repair contributions. The amendment would not, I suggest, help sole traders who want to retire, or who have retired, and want to completely end their liability of the scheme.
In respect of new clause 2 and the Pensions Commission, I am afraid, as I have repeatedly made clear to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), that this is not something that the Government can support.
I finally turn to new clause 1, which was proposed by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the Chair of the Select Committee. It is quite clear that there is a common intent across the House to improve guidance to individuals. I cannot support his amendment, not least because it would potentially apply, so I am advised, to defined benefit as well as defined  contribution. It is something that would massively enhance the workload of Pension Wise by at least 10 times. He will be aware that there are more than 4.4 million individuals with unaccessed DC pension wealth aged 45 to 54 in the UK. In 2019-20, Pension Wise processed 200,000 transactions. I respectfully suggest—

Stephen Timms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Guy Opperman: I will give way for the last time.

Stephen Timms: On his point about the shared intent, I quoted in my speech what Baroness Buscombe said in the other place on 1 May 2018. She was speaking, I think, for him. She said:
“We all want people…to make it the norm to use Pension Wise before accessing their pension.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1995.]
Does that remain the Government’s intention?

Guy Opperman: I stand by section 19 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, which specifically sets out that where a scheme member makes an application to transfer pensions rights or start receiving flexible benefits, they have to be referred to appropriate pensions guidance and provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of the guidance. Before proceeding with an application,
“the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”
What we are proposing as a result of section 19 and the stronger nudge proposals is what the Work and Pensions Committee asked us to do. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, but our esteemed colleague who sadly is not with us anymore, Mr Frank Field, the former Member for Birkenhead, made the case very robustly in documents I am happy to disclose to the House—documents that the right hon. Gentleman will have as Chair of the Committee—that what the Government are doing is the right way forward. Because of that, we changed the previous Bill to do exactly what we are proposing to do now.
However, I am very keen to work with colleagues across the House and with the Work and Pensions Committee to take forward the proposals to enhance and improve the guidance that is available. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will work with me and the Government to ensure that that takes place. I may not have responded to some colleagues, for which I apologise, but I thank all colleagues for their support of his groundbreaking Bill.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the debate we have had on this set of new clauses and amendments, and I welcome many of the things that the Minister said. On new clause 1, I am not sure whether he does still stand by what his noble Friend said on his behalf two years ago about the use of Pension Wise becoming “the norm”. If that is still his intention, I have not heard anything this evening to make me think that there is a plan to deliver on that intention. New clause 1 would deliver on that intention. I think it is widely agreed across the House that we should make access to that guidance the norm, so I would like to press new clause 1 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 351.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 7 October).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 4 - Employer debt: trustees’ discretion

‘(1) The following changes are made to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678).
(2) In regulation 2, in the definition of “scheme apportionment arrangement”—
(a) in sub-paragraph (f)(ii), after “apply”, insert “but not if the circumstances in paragraph (h) apply”;
(b) at end insert—
“(h) the consent of the remaining employer or employers shall not be required under (f)(ii) above where all of the following conditions apply—
(i) the departing employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior to the coming into force of this provision; and
(ii) the departing employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due; and
(iii) the employer in question was operating as an unincorporated business during his participation in the scheme; and
(iv) the trustees or managers consider that, in the context of the scheme overall, taking into account factors such as the scheme’s assets, liabilities and the trustees’ or managers’ most recent assessment  of the overall employer covenant, there would be no material benefit to the scheme and its members in seeking recovery of the employer’s liability share from the departing employer.”
(3) In regulation 9, after paragraph (14B), insert the following new paragraph—
“(14C) Condition L is that a debt was treated as becoming due from him under section 75 of the 1995 Act but is excluded under this Condition because—
(a) the employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior to this Condition coming into force; and
(b) the employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due; and
(c) the employer in question was operating as an unincorporated business during his participation in the scheme; and
(d) at or before the applicable time, the trustees or managers have made a determination not to pursue the debt on the grounds that, in the context of the scheme overall, taking into account factors such as the scheme’s assets, liabilities and the trustees’ or managers’ most recent assessment of the overall employer covenant, seeking recovery represented a disproportionate cost to the scheme and would be of no material benefit to the scheme overall.”’—(Neil Gray.)
This new clause would enable pension scheme trustees to exercise discretion not to pursue employer debt following an employer’s exit from a pension scheme where such debt is below a de minimis threshold. This aims to support unincorporated employers who are now retired for business and for whom the current regulation allows no easements.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 349.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 123 - Funding of defined benefit schemes

Amendment proposed: 1,page117,line34, at end insert—
‘(2) In exercising any powers to make regulations, or otherwise to prescribe any matter or principle, under Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004 (scheme funding) as amended by Schedule 10, the Secretary of State must ensure that—
(a) schemes that are expected to remain open to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant period of time, are treated differently from schemes that are not;
(b) scheme liquidity is balanced with scheme maturity;
(c) there is a correlation between appropriate investment risk and scheme maturity;
(d) affordability of contributions to employers is maintained;
(e) affordability of contributions to members is maintained;
(f) the closure of schemes that are expected to remain open to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant period of time, is not accelerated; and
(g) trustees retain sufficient discretion to be able to comply with their duty to act in the best interests of their beneficiaries.”—(Wendy Chamberlain.)
This amendment seeks to ensure that open and active schemes which are receiving regular, significant cash contributions and closed schemes are treated differently, in accordance with their differing liquidity profile.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 356.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 124 - Climate change risk

Amendment proposed: 16,page118,line45, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
‘(8) In this section and in sections 41AA, 41B and 41C—
(a) “the Paris Agreement goal” means the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 4.1 of the agreement done at Paris on 12 December 2015; and
(b) “other climate change goal” means any climate change goal approved by the Secretary of State, but does not apply to a climate change goal which fails to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement goal.
41AA Alignment with the Paris Agreement goal
‘(1) Trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes of a prescribed description must develop, set and implement, and from time to time review and if necessary revise, a strategy for ensuring that their investment policy, objectives and practices (including stewardship activities) are aligned with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal.
(2) Such a strategy is to be known as a “Paris-alignment strategy”.
(3) The objective of a Paris-alignment strategy must be to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, consistent with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal.
(4) Provision may be made by regulations—
(a) requiring the trustees or managers of a scheme, in determining or revising a Paris-alignment strategy, to take into account prescribed matters and follow prescribed principles—
(i) as to the level of detail required in a Paris-alignment strategy; and
(ii) as to the period within which a Paris-alignment strategy must be developed, set and effected;
(b) requiring annual reporting on the implementation of the Paris-alignment strategy and progress against the objective set out in subsection (3); and
(c) requiring a Paris-alignment strategy to be reviewed, and if necessary revised, at such intervals and on such occasions as may be prescribed.’—(Jonathan Reynolds.)
This amendment enables regulations that would mandate occupational pension schemes to develop a strategy for ensuring that their investments and stewardship activities are aligning with the Paris agreement goals, and include an objective of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 356.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.

Guy Opperman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a hugely—

Felicity Buchan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Guy Opperman: How could I possibly not give way to my hon. Friend!

Nigel Evans: Was that “On that point”?

Felicity Buchan: My hon. Friend is aware of my constituent Mr John Walker’s landmark case in the Supreme Court, where he secured equal pension rights for single-sex married couples. Will my hon. Friend assure me that although that currently is the law in the UK, he will find a way to enshrine it in statute?

Guy Opperman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making her point so eloquently and intervening speedily in this short Third Reading speech. I can confirm that the law stays as per the Supreme Court decision, even after we leave the EU. I stand by what I wrote to her in the detailed letter that I drafted to her in October, a copy of which I will place in the House of Commons Library to set the matter firmly on the record.
Before I was so generously interrupted, I was saying that this is a hugely important piece of legislation with cross-party support, for which I thank colleagues from all parties, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who cannot be with us tonight. The Bill will affect the lives of millions of our constituents throughout the country; make pensions safer, better and greener; stop scams; introduce CDCs; create pension dashboards; and crack down on callous crooks who take away our constituents’ pensions. It also legislates for a new type of pension scheme, establishing the dashboard and making pensions fundamentally greener. I commend the Bill to the House.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank all colleagues for their participation in today’s proceedings and throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank the Minister; my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who led for the Opposition in Committee; and Sophia Morrell and Lily Lewis from our staff teams. I pay tribute to the shadow Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). He is a peerless source of knowledge, wisdom and advice, and he has played a significant role in this legislation. Unfortunately, he could not participate in Committee or today’s proceedings because the House does not have in place the measures required to allow  all MPs to participate safely on an equal basis during the pandemic. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation, and I know that many Government Members concur with that. I welcome the moves today to finally get  this resolved.
On the whole, this has been a positive experience. Perhaps the most significant change made in the Bill is the introduction of the new collective defined-contribution schemes, which we will have to monitor carefully, as well as more substantive measures of benefit to our constituents. This legislation deserves to pass its Third Reading, and it will do so with the support of the Opposition.

Neil Gray: Like others, I wish to put on record my thanks to the Clerks, Huw Yardley and Kenneth Fox, and to Djuna Thurley in the Library, for their support. I also thank our SNP researchers Zoe Carre and Linda Nagy for their fantastic assistance, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for his considerable and informed support in Committee.
This Bill takes matters forward in the pensions world. It could have gone further, and I regret that it does not, but we thank the Minister and the other parties for working together constructively on such an important piece of legislation. We look with interest to its further stages in the other place.

Stephen Timms: I echo the thanks that have been expressed by all three Front-Bench spokespeople. I welcome the content of the Bill and the progress made on collective defined-contribution schemes and the pensions dashboard. I was looking back at a report of the Work and Pensions Committee published before I became the Chair, which said:
“A pensions dashboard is long overdue”—
then I looked at the date of the report, and it was 2015. It will still be another three years before we get that dashboard, but the Bill is undoubtedly a very important step forward in that journey.
I welcome the commitments that the Minister made on scams and addressing the changes that are needed. I was disappointed that when I intervened on him on Report, he was not able to reaffirm the commitment that the Department appeared to have, and which was expressed on his behalf in the other place on 1 May 2018, that Pension Wise should become “the norm”.

Guy Opperman: I do—I said so.

Stephen Timms: That is welcome. We agree, then, that taking up Pension Wise guidance should be the norm, and I look forward to working with him on making that a reality from the very distant place we are in at the moment. I welcome the progress that the Bill represents, and I look forward to it being firmly on the statute book.

Wendy Chamberlain: There is nothing more for me to say, other than to add my thanks to Members of this House and the other place for their work on the Bill. There is much to recommend the Bill, and I look forward to seeing how it progresses.

Jim Shannon: I thank Members and the Minister for their contributions on Third Reading. I look forward to bringing to the Minister’s door issues on behalf of my constituents, which he has been very generous in responding  to in the past. I know that he will not be averse to me calling at his door, and that as always, he will respond in a positive fashion. That is the sign of a good Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union  (Public Procurement)

That the draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union

That the draft Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union  (Electronic Communications)

That the draft Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union  (Environmental Protection Wildlife)

That the draft Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union  (Environmental Protection)

That the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

That the draft Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Road Traffic)

That the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union  (Environmental Protection)

That the draft New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rating and Valuation

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention, Levy and Safety Net and Levy Account: Basis of Distribution) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Recognition of sub postmasters

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition from the residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk regarding sub-postmasters. Post offices are a lifeline for the communities that they serve, and according to the National Federation of SubPostmasters, they are a support mechanism for as many as 300,000 vulnerable people, but they may not be able to continue to function if the Post Office subsidy is not maintained.
The petition, with which I fully agree, reads as follows:
The petition of residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that sub postmasters and their staff carry out valuable work daily to support their local communities; further declares that they provide financial services that ensure the physical and psychological wellbeing of vulnerable people; and further declares that all sub postmasters should be commended for their efforts and their role should be preserved by a UK Government commitment to the Post Office network.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure the extension of the Post Office subsidy beyond 2021; and make a formal statement on the integral role that sub postmasters play in supporting their communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc
[P002624]

Leaseholders and Cladding:  Greenwich and Woolwich

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Nigel Evans: Before I call Matthew Pennycook, I remind Members that because of the technicalities, I shall put the Question again at 10 o’clock.

Matthew Pennycook: May I begin by thanking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting the debate, and the Minister for taking time from his schedule to respond?
The debate concerns a subject of the utmost important to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of leaseholders in my south-east London constituency, and to hundreds of thousands more people across the country. For those who have not followed the twists and turns of this scandal since 2017, it is easy to forget just how staggering the scale of the cladding and mortgage crisis truly is. Its impact on an urban constituency of the kind that I represent has been, and continues to be, enormous. Within Greenwich and Woolwich, the external wall systems of more than 20 privately owned buildings across seven developments have been found to have aluminium composite material cladding of the type found on Grenfell Tower. The external wall systems of a further 59 buildings have been found to contain some other kind of combustible material, and many of those also have significant building safety defects, ranging from non-existent fire stopping to defective compartmentalisation. Thousands of leaseholders in countless other buildings locally—many with no defects whatever—remain mortgage prisoners or have had to absorb the significant costs of intrusive inspections to gain an EWS1 form.
I would be the first to concede that there are no simple or straightforward answers to this crisis, but based on my involvement in scores of cases over recent years, of which there are far too many to cover individually, there are some obvious things that the Government can and should do immediately to better support leaseholders, as well as a pressing need to provide greater clarity on the fundamental issue of leaseholder liability. In my remarks, I intend to touch on three specific areas where I believe decisive Government action is required—namely, public funding, buildings insurance and mortgages—before addressing that more fundamental issue of leaseholder liability.
Turning first to Government funding, while leaseholders will not easily forget the fact that previous Ministers had to be cajoled over several years into making various funding commitments, the public funding that the Government have made available for both ACM and non-ACM remediation is welcome, but further changes will need to be made, and I will speak briefly to three.
It is obvious that the deadlines involved in the building safety fund will have to be revised. The latest statistics released by the Department make clear that only 139 applications have been processed since 31 July—an average of just 17 a week. Even if the process accelerates markedly in the weeks ahead, there is no chance that more than a tiny proportion of eligible projects will  have contracts in place by the 31 December deadline, given that the average time taken from the release of funds to having one in place is between 25 and 30 weeks. In responding, can the Minister confirm that he accepts that all the deadlines in the fund will have to be pushed back, including the 31 December deadline and the March deadline for people being on the ground and in place? When can this House expect an update to that effect?
The size of the building safety fund will clearly have to increase. It is well known that the Government’s own estimate is that the total cost of remediating non-ACM buildings will be in the order of £3 billion to £3.5 billion. The current size of the fund is only large enough to cover around 600 buildings, so even if a significant proportion of the 2,784 applications made to date are deemed ineligible or are rejected, it is patently obvious that the £1 billion of funding that has been allocated will still not be enough.
I appreciate that there are good reasons for the Government not to rush to announce additional funding, and I also trust that the Department is trying to make the funds that do exist go further by doing everything possible to convince developers to contribute to remedial costs in ways that do not prejudice applications to it, but it surely cannot be the case, as it is at present, that some affected leaseholders in non-ACM buildings over 18 metres will receive support from the taxpayer while others will not. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could assure me—I phrase this carefully in order that he might—that the Government have not ruled out additional public support for non-ACM remediation beyond the moneys already committed.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate on a big issue for my constituents in Vauxhall. On the funds that the Government have made available, does my hon. Friend think the Government should make provide funding for waking watch, for which, in some cases, constituents are being asked to pay in excess of £30,000 a month just to stay in their buildings? Without that, they would have to evacuate the building.

Matthew Pennycook: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that the costs of waking watch are absolutely staggering. Leaseholders are already paying those costs, as she makes clear, in a way that is financially unsustainable for many of them. I will pick up on that point later, not only in what I will say on the fund, but in talking about leaseholder liability and whether leaseholders are being protected in the way that has been suggested.
Finally, the scope of public funding more generally must also be revisited. It is Government guidance that is ultimately driving the need for remediation and it is simply not equitable that leaseholders in buildings over 18 metres in height, whether those buildings are covered in ACM or non-ACM cladding, are assisted by the state while those in buildings below that threshold are left to fend for themselves. The Minister must surely recognise that the Government cannot argue that height should not be the sole, or even the—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Matthew Pennycook: As I was saying, the Minister must surely recognise that the Government cannot argue that height should not be the sole, or even the main, determinant of investigations but then make height the main criterion for access to public funding. Nor is it equitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) touched on, that leaseholders continue to bear the exorbitant costs, the median of which in London stands at £256 a month per household, of interim fire safety measures either through service charge increases or the draining of sinking funds.

Elliot Colburn: I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important Adjournment debate. I have a building under 18 metres in Carshalton and Wallington that is similarly affected. Does he agree that it is not the leaseholder’s fault that they are living in a building that has this cladding on it, and therefore any remediation that we offer has to accept that, and we need to support them through the process?

Matthew Pennycook: The hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will pick up on towards the end of my remarks. To my mind, either the Government are responsible, in terms of defective regulation over many years, or builders are responsible, in terms of defective buildings. I cannot accept that the leaseholder, who of all the parties involved bears the least responsibility, is potentially being landed with the costs. The leaseholders I represent cannot understand how that potential still hangs over their heads.
I believe that eligibility for the building safety fund should be overhauled to cover buildings between 11 and 18 metres in height. The Government should re-open the private sector remediation fund for ACM-clad buildings in the same height category, and secondary costs as they relate to any affected building should be covered. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether the Government are at least willing to consider those changes.
Buildings insurance is a growing problem, and the Government must step in to help to find a solution. With the insurance industry moving to limit its exposure on buildings covered in combustible materials of any kind, leaseholders in my constituency are finding it increasingly difficult to keep their buildings insured or, if they are able to do so, they are having to absorb soaring premium costs.
The case of Blenheim Court, a 24-unit development in east Greenwich, is worth citing as it is a good example of what is happening on the ground. Having secured several extensions to its policy as the right to manage sought to progress plans for remedial works, the insurer in question made it clear that the risk involved no longer fell within its underwriting appetite and the leaseholders faced the prospect of seeing their building uninsured, with the heightened risk of repossession that that entailed. Thankfully, at the eleventh hour they secured a policy with a consortium, but at an eye-watering cost of £163,000 for just 12 months’ cover. With the  cost of renewals on affected buildings increasing across the board, does the Minister accept that to protect leaseholders adequately the Government will ultimately have to support the insurance industry, in all likelihood by acting as an insurer of last resort, in bringing forward a temporary solution?
I could have had a whole Adjournment debate on the mortgage crisis alone, such is the scale of the problem it is causing across the country and for the housing market. For all the hopes originally invested in it—and let us be clear it was an initiative that the Government were involved in developing even if they decided to distance themselves prior to its announcement—it has been clear for some time that the external wall fire review process has not resolved the difficulties caused within the mortgage lending market through changes in Government building safety guidance.
The guidance is not sufficiently clear. Too many buildings have been brought within the scope of the process. The issues around professional indemnity insurance are too thorny to resolve, and the scale of the remediation challenge is far bigger than originally assumed. The problem cannot be resolved by industry alone—something that I hope the Government have also now accepted. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I would be grateful if the Minister could at least provide leaseholders with some reassurance that his Department is trying to devise a system that facilitates the valuation and sale of properties that have some fire risk or an unconfirmed external wall façade, and to ensure that all buildings can be surveyed within a reasonable timeframe.
There are many other issues I could cover—not least what more can be done to speed up the pace of remediation more generally—but decisive Government action in the three areas I have covered would go a long way to improving the situation for affected leaseholders in my constituency and around the country. However, even if each were to be resolved in short order, that would not entirely alleviate the concerns, because there remains an ambiguity on the fundamental issue of leaseholder liability.
Strip away all the complexity in this crisis and the fundamental questions have always been: how can we make buildings safe more quickly, and who is going to pay to clean up this mess? It has always been my firm view that it would be indefensible—I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn)—to pass on to leaseholders even a fraction of the £15 billion that the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates will be required to fully remediate all buildings over 18 metres and the unknown costs of remediating buildings between 11 and 18 metres. As I said earlier, of all the parties caught up in this scandal, leaseholders bear no responsibility whatsoever for it.
Leaving aside the fact that over the past three years countless leaseholders across the country have been hit with huge bills for interim fire safety costs and remediation, and that the Government have entirely failed to protect them, until a few months ago the Government’s stated position, repeated by successive Secretaries and Ministers of State from the Dispatch Box, had always been that leaseholders should be fully protected. The then Housing Minister, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), set out the position succinctly on 22 January last year, when he made it clear that the Government would
“ensure that leaseholders do not bear the cost of this situation in any circumstance.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 135.]
Fast-forward to 16 October this year, and, in response to a written question, the current Housing Minister stated only that the Government were looking to protect  leaseholders from “unaffordable costs”, subsequently defined by one of his colleagues as anything short of bankruptcy. Likewise, in evidence to the Select Committee on 19 October, the Minister for Building Safety and Communities stated plainly that
“some costs would fall on leaseholders—they would not be protected from all costs”.
Hon. and right hon. Members, as well as leaseholders across the country, concluded that the Government’s position had changed, and they worried accordingly.
Today at departmental questions, in a response to a question from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Housing Minister argued that there had been no change of position and that the Government are “quite clear” that they “do not expect” and “do not want” leaseholders to bear the cost of remediation. If that is the case, why has Michael Wade been charged with
“rapidly identifying financing solutions that protect leaseholders”
not from costs entirely but from “unaffordable costs”, and why does the draft Building Safety Bill, a legislative vehicle that should have been used to properly protect leaseholders in the way Ministers promised repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, seek instead to render leaseholders liable for defects, irrespective of the terms of their individual leases?
As I stand here this evening, not only are leaseholders more confused than ever about the Government’s position on their liability, but even if it remains the case that—again, I quote the Minister’s words earlier—the Government “do not expect” and “do not want” leaseholders to bear the cost of remediation, the Government actually have to take steps to ensure that that is the case.
Perhaps I am being unduly cynical, but I and leaseholders in my constituency fear that, confronted with a situation where, in all likelihood, more than half the country’s stock of buildings over 18 metres have had or still have some kind of building safety defect that requires fixing, and unprepared on the one hand to openly admit that this crisis is the result of profound regulatory failure under successive Governments but on the other hand not willing to go after developers more assertively on the grounds of mass non-compliance with the regulations in place over many years, the Government have decided that the only way through this morass is for them to cover a small proportion of the costs, to encourage but not compel developers and building owners to bear some of the costs, and to allow the latter to pass on the remaining costs to leaseholders using the mechanisms that the Government will have afforded them to do so.
I truly hope that I am wrong, and if that is the case the Minister has a perfect opportunity this evening to make clear precisely why, but if leaseholders did ultimately end up picking up the lion’s share of the bill, not only would it be an outrage but it would force untold numbers of leaseholders—even if the blow was limited by some form of cap or a long-term payment system—into financial hardship and, in many cases, ruin. For many leaseholders, all but the most superficial costs are likely to be unaffordable.
I will finish by saying this: any Member who has spent any time listening to the testimonies of leaseholders affected by this scandal will know that it is hard to  overstate the abject misery it has caused. There is, of course, plenty of anger, but the overriding feeling on the part of leaseholders I have spoken to over the years is one of utter desperation—a feeling driven by the belief not only that they are trapped in their homes physically, mentally and financially, but that they have been all but abandoned by their Government. I hope that in his response the Minister disproves that belief and makes it clear that the people at the centre of this crisis can expect not just comforting words in this Chamber, but action to remediate their buildings, and action that will afford them more protection financially than they look likely to receive at present.

Christopher Pincher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on securing this important debate on a matter of significant importance not only to him and his constituency but, as we have heard, to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and many other Members across the House. It is a national concern, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his remarks and his doughty campaign on behalf of his constituents, and I will try to address the points he raised during the course of my remarks.
First, however, I will provide some context. We established the building safety programme within days of the Grenfell Tower fire, and its aim has always been to ensure that residents of high-rise blocks are safe now and in the future. Our intention has been clear from the outset: that unsafe aluminium composite material of the type found on Grenfell Tower and other dangerous cladding must be removed from high-rise residential buildings. It is therefore our priority to ensure unsafe ACM cladding is removed and replaced swiftly, protecting leaseholders from unaffordable costs.
We want to see the completion of remedial works by the end of 2021, as the Select Committee report recommends. While many responsible building owners and developers—including Pemberstone, Barratt Developments, Legal & General, Mace, Peabody and Aberdeen Standard Investments—have taken action to remediate and fund the remediation of their buildings, some have not. Too many building owners and managing agents in the private sector have been too slow in getting remediation work started, and that is why the Government have intervened with the funding and the specialist support that we have provided. We will not tolerate any further delays. Where building owners are failing to make acceptable progress, those responsible should expect local authorities and fire and rescue services to take tougher enforcement action.
At the end of October, of the 460 identified high-rise buildings with ACM cladding, 363 buildings—that is 79% —have either completed remediation or had their ACM cladding systems removed. If we include the social housing sector, that figure rises to 97%.
We recognise that in London there is a disproportionate number of unsafe cladded high-rise buildings, so we have convened two London summits since September,  bringing together the Mayor, key local authorities—including Greenwich—and the London Fire Brigade, to agree an action plan for accelerating the remediation of buildings, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh have been instrumental in that process.
Overall, the Government have set aside, as the House will know, £1.6 billion in funding. That covers the remediation not only of ACM cladding but of other types of unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings in the private and social housing sectors, and we have been guided in our approach by the recommendations of the Hackitt report. We made this money available to support the remediation of unsafe cladding, and a large proportion of that support will protect leaseholders from those costs.
We recognise that wider remediation costs will need to be met to ensure the safety of existing blocks of flats. However, as I am sure the House will accept, public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility for any failures that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on these buildings in the first place. That is why we expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to pay to take responsibility and cover the costs of remediation themselves, without passing on costs to leaseholders. We have heard that some are doing that, and they are to be commended, and others must follow their lead. That is the case for more than 50% of privately owned high-rise residential buildings with unsafe ACM cladding, and we expect developers and owners to step up in similar ways for other kinds of unsafe cladding.
We have always acknowledged that materials other than ACM are of concern, and we have been providing advice on their removal to building owners since 2017. The highest priority has, as we have heard, been the removal of the type of ACM cladding used on Grenfell Tower, because it poses the most severe safety risk, but other unsafe cladding materials must also be removed. As such, and for those cases where costs present a financial barrier to the pace of remediation, we have taken action. In March, we announced that additional £1 billion of funding, through the building safety fund, for the remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding in the social and private residential sectors. The building safety fund is available for high-rise buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding, such as those types of high-pressure laminate. We are already working to advance eligible applications to the fund to the next stage so that we can begin the remediation process as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested that there were very few processed applications, but I can assure him that there are many more than just a few. I look forward to presenting a fuller report, so that by the end of March 2021 we will see that that funding has been allocated in full, as we promised.
Although this funding is a much-needed step to make homes safer, we still expect a significant proportion of the remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding to be provided by those responsible for the original work.

Matthew Pennycook: I thank the Minister for the detail he has provided in his response. I should make it clear that the statistics are his Department’s own published statistics, so if he has different figures, I urge him to bring those forward in the monthly publication so that we can see them. I am putting figures to him that his  own Department has published. On developer liability, the Minister has again said “we expect”. I have sat in this Chamber and heard successive Ministers say that they “expect” developers and building owners to come forward, that it is morally right that they do so and that nothing is being taken off the table, but here we are in the same position many months if not years later. What are the Government actually going to do to compel developers and building owners to contribute more?

Christopher Pincher: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have made significant progress with the processing of the applications. I look forward in due course—I hope it will be soon—to giving him better news than he supposes may be out there.
We have been clear that it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about cladding remediation costs to fix safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause. That is why—I say it again—where developers or building owners have been unable or unwilling to pay we have introduced funding schemes, providing that £1.6 billion of remediation to accelerate the pace of work and meet the costs of remediating the highest-risk and most expensive defects. We recognise that there will be wider works. We are accelerating work with leaseholders and the financial sector on solutions to deal with those wider works, and we believe that there will be a combination of options to deliver a solution—there will not be a quick fix, as the hon. Gentleman put it. I want to update the House and leaseholders on that set of options as soon as I can.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned waking watch, as did the hon. Member for Vauxhall. I know that leaseholders have very significant concerns about the costs of interim measures, which have been heightened due to the covid-19 emergency. Waking watch is a short-term tool; it is no substitute for remediation. It is by targeting remediation funding where it is needed most—by removing and replacing dangerous cladding—that we can help make those homes safer more quickly and dispense with waking watches.
However, I recognise residents’ concerns about the costs of waking watch measures and the lack of transparency about those costs. That is why we have collected and published information on waking watches. The data will enable those who have commissioned waking watches to make comparisons and challenge providers about unreasonable costs. We have also identified, as a result of that work, that it can be cheaper to install alarm mechanisms rather than use waking watches. We will, of course, keep the situation under review.

Florence Eshalomi: On the specific issue of waking watches, a number of constituents represented by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and many others are probably watching tonight and about to go to bed. Does the Minister agree that they will not be able to sleep because of not just the cost of the waking watch, but additional costs for which they may be billed?
The Minister talks about options, but these people have no option to rent or sell—there are no options for some of those leaseholders. They want the Government to step up now and look at how to address the interim costs—not costs in the future. For them, there are no options and there is no way out. They feel trapped, now.

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady; I entirely understand the great difficulty that many of her constituents and others will feel. It is a very worrying situation for them. That is why we have put aside so much money this financial year to help remediate those buildings that have no other way of speedy remediation and that need it most. As I said to her, we will keep the situation under review.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich also raised the question of EWS1 and mortgages. It is wrong for leaseholders to find themselves unable to sell their homes due to lending restrictions. I am aware—we debated this earlier today—that EWS1 forms created by the industry to assist valuations of high-rise buildings of more than 18 metres are being asked for in some instances for buildings under 18 metres. The Government do not support that blanket approach to EWS1 forms or buildings. It is probably worth my repeating that, as the House will know, the EWS1 form is not a Government form but produced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Not all lenders require it; some lenders use other tools. The Secretary of State has been working with the finance sector and my noble Friend Lord Greenhalghto find more nuanced mechanisms to deliver a satisfactory outcome for residents and leaseholders, but we do not support a blanket approach to the use of EWS1 forms on buildings. Buildings below the height of 18 metres should not have EWS1 forms applied to them. Buildings which do not have external wall systems should not have EWS1 forms applied to them. We must work with all the vigour and determination that we can muster with the financial services sector to persuade them to take a different course.
We want residents to feel safe in their homes and we want them to feel empowered. Residents will be back at the heart of the system and measures in the draft Building Safety Bill will make that a reality. The new regime will give residents a stronger voice in an improved system of fire and structural safety, overseen by a more effective regulatory framework, including stronger powers  to inspect high-rise buildings and sanctions to tackle irresponsible behaviour. We remain consistent in our commitment to take forward a comprehensive programme of reform and to end unfair practices in the leasehold market.
Progress has been made since the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich spoke in the Westminster Hall debate back, I think, in February. Homes are being made safer. Some 97% of buildings with ACM have, or are now in the process of, remediation. We are already working to advance eligible applicants for the £1 billion building safety scheme to the next stage, so we can begin the remediation process as quickly as possible. I can assure him that more progress than perhaps he thinks has been made and is being made.

John Healey: Well, tell us then.

Christopher Pincher: All in good time. We have appointed a specialist set of consultants to increase the pace of remediation and we have introduced the Fire Safety Bill to strengthen enforcement action. The hard work continues. We have published the draft Building Safety Bill, which is a once-in-a-generation change to the building safety regime. It will be instrumental not only in shaping future policy to allow the new regime to prevent safety defects occurring in the first place, but in ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes.
We will continue to work tirelessly and, I hope, across the Chamber, to bring about the lasting change we need, so that absolutely everyone in our country lives somewhere which is decent, which is secure, which is safe, which is their own and which they can be proud to call, and we can be proud to call, their home.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  William Wragg


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Gavin Robinson


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Evans


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Bim Afolami


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Gavin Robinson


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) ( Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire( (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Robbie Moore


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Kim Johnson


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Tom Hunt


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
  Stuart Andrew


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Tom Hunt


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew